You'll need to elaborate on that. How are you going to determine any plaintext at all in the file (presuming it even is text)? There are no repeating sequences of bytes you could mount a statistical attack on, the very purpose of "chaining" the XOR operations.
If it's that easy, you should be able to pseudocode the crack, here and now.
Chained-XOR (say, XOR-ing with the key byte sequence -and- the preceding file bytes in the last XOR-ing round, with an arbitrary key length) is actually quite secure.
IIRC, it is one of the techniques that automatically qualified an algorithm as an unexportable "munition".
For a small monthly fee, you can retrieve your company e-mails directly from the NSA. Although this will not help with the fact that your "politically connected" competitor will soon inevitably put you out of business due to having all your trade secrets, it does simplify remembering the e-mail address of that guy you think might want to buy the office furniture.
Yes, I know more than you about this, and every related subject. You need to take your poseur ego panhandling elsewhere. You have generated nothing but useless conceptual junk with your "meta-view" method, and neither have nor can present any concerted view with actual useful content. "Not that" is not a position, it is not an accomplishment, it is literally nothing--for another basic logical fallacy among the many you need to have a clue about to achieve the basic abilities at thinking you currently lack, that one's a Reification Fallacy.
If you are wrong, you are wrong, if you are right, you have said nothing about anything with any validity. It's a vacuum of capability on your part you've somehow managed to impress unquestioning others with enough to satisfy your goalless ego-stroking--however, I am not among them.
More thinking, less trolling, if you are capable of it. You're stuck like a broken parrot on the notion of "political manipulation" (and now, that you have been shown to have no basis for your claim, you just desperately rhetorically amplify it with equally-unbacked "violence"), when there is simply no basis for it being relevant, when it could be actually relevant to your argument, before 200 AD.
I don't rely on others. Stop with this ludicrous "all positions are somebody's, therefore whenever I feel like it, I refer to that other somebody and claim my opposition's position is wrong because it's also somebody else's" nonsense. It's childish, and irrational. The specific reason it is formally, provably irrational I have already given you--it is formally a Genetic Fallacy.
I listened, considered, investigated, and now I -know- as fact. I know, you do not, and unfortunately I can't help you with that, because you are willfully refusing to think rationally, and will therefore fail on this and any other philosophical question.
So, still no plausible combination of proposed scriptural change and actual political advantage that would be offered by it. You could have at least parroted some Dan Brown, even if that would put us at laughable levels of historical scholarship.
The rest of your post is all over the map, lots of insults and very little useful content, but to answer what you appear to be staking out as your main relevant counterpoint, on "clean foods"...
Here's a straightforward rationale found with a simple google search, linked mainly for the verse citations. As we see, the number of verses supporting that there was an actual rescoping of expectations corresponding to a direct spiritual rationale, is not singular, but has multiple mutually-reinforcing verses within scripture.
On your last part on "finding truth", there is no necessary contradiction between how you came across a truth, and whether it is truth. If you want the formal name of the fallacy of this thinking, it is a Genetic Fallacy. Overall, you simply have rejected a-priori a particular source for your personal reasons, and will fog over resolving questions for yourself with whatever degree of refusal to do the work of discerning what's true (among which are the very basic, stated tools of evaluating internal logical consistency) that is necessary.
I was just scrolling by, minding my own business; when I saw your little faux passe about the truth in the Bible not changing over time.
You actually didn't address his statement at all. While it's fun to talk about how many books there were, and how many changes there may have been, it actually doesn't make any more difference to the truth of the content than book editions today, or how many may be rejected by a publisher covering the same topic. Far from "whimsical", the criteria, determined at absolute minimum, by people deeply engaged in the topic at the time, was largely consistency with the baseline, most-trusted documents. If the writing lacks consistency with those, or even internally with itself, by any criteria it should be rejected--and that is precisely the basis by which they were. Christians tend to believe that the bible accurately transmits the essential truths of the religion due to the historical guidance of God, but your argument doesn't even rise to being a valid criticism of, say, the most mundane topics such as the creation and selections of a textbook on physics.
And, the notion that the essential truths to be conveyed was selected based on political considerations is highly implausible, as the core was selected by Irenaeus before 200 AD, well before the Catholic Church had notable political power to "protect" by your fanciful notion of "political" motivations. Since you didn't present even the barest notion of some political gain to be had even theoretically, by means of some relevant theological conclusion that could be "manipulated", how about you make something up now, to fill in your argument that much, at least?
If you can name an essential difference in actual doctrine (analogous to presuming wildly varying accepted understandings of physics because of physics books typos or consolidations) that one would derive differently based on the history of the documents, that is, the "truths" that are proposed to be there, to make your argument relevant, then do so and we'll take it from there.
God in the form sold by the 3 majors doesn't exist, it is a logical fallacy.
This in itself is sufficient to demonstrate you have no idea what a logical fallacy is, or how logic is applied. Which fallacy? The real ones are actually formalized and enumerated. Theism is not among them.
I actually belong to a "literal" militia, recognized by the state, and while I don't own a musket I do own the modern equivalent.
This is relevant only insofar as you are agreeing with me. The founding fathers certainly didn't have the precise form of your "militia" in mind when the principle was drafted, yet, I presume you feel it applies. It is also quite-unproblematically used to apply to individuals "bearing arms" in general, though that lacks the precise correspondence to the original text that you claim would make it not "valid".
Your "faith" is my joke, that you deign to scold me is evidence enough of your unrelenting arrogance, anyone of merit would have skimmed past my post, but you took it personally.
Yawn. You might be able to troll me with that if I didn't know otherwise as fact. We'll take up the discussion to elaborate on the question at a much-later date, though. Your participation non-optional.
Neither the U.S. nor Russia has been able to defeat a bunch of desert-dwellers with rifles during either country's sustained military campaigns.
Such asymmetric warfare would the the last thing to overcome, waged likely better by standard U.S. citizens than the Taliban, -if- they survived all the ICBM's, sub-launched missiles, stealth and conventional bombers, Army, and Marines--to name a few.
Engaging in such a thing would only be a catastrophically foolish thing for any country to attempt, and they know it. "Parity" is simply an ongoing game to benefit the military-industrial complex and the perceived "prestige" of the leadership, on the backs of the citizens. The U.S. could easily freeze at 1950 levels, and we'd remain quite certainly unattacked--freeing up tremendous resources where we are -actually- at threat of losing to China and Russia, economically.
... in order to be valid it must remain unchanged.
No, it doesn't. It shares the same process of contextual application as... most every domain of human activity. Is the U.S. Constitution "valid"? Does the fact we now aren't talking about literal militias and muskets in applying it, invalidate the principles?
Feel free to continue making up universally logically-impossible criteria and false definitions, such as the meaning of "faith", and wishfully projecting that onto religious practice, though. Enjoy. We'll just continue on with what it actually is, and what we actually do.
I'll try to make appropriate assumptions about your views and premises to address your questions in a way you'll find clearer.
What do you mean by 'proposing causal exclusivity to "evolutionary" processes'?
By "causal exclusivity" I mean that the proposed effect (in this case, human existence in our current form) would be fully explained by the proposed cause. Usually, the reason this distinction needs to be made is because an argument that is being made is really a "false dichotomy" fallacy, like this:
Statement asked:
"Do you accept 'evolution'?"
Implied meaning:
"Do you think we have our current biological form and attributes 100% because of (naturalistic) evolution, or 0% because of evolution?"
My answer is "neither". The question is being framed such that no answer can be correct.
Very few people (including theists) would say "0%", particularly because simple hybridization is itself a form of evolution, and hybridization is uncontroversial both in terms of direct testable experience, and, for that matter, is directly described and supported in scripture.
Considerably more would say "100%", or rather, would not actually directly claim that, but rather will avoid analysis by simply using the term "evolution" to -imply- that, and thereby avoid further questions without having to discuss the specifics. Generally, the people strongly advocating this "implying 100%" position are atheists, who feel they need to believe it's 100% attributable to evolution because their personal choice as to philosophical stance requires that they believe that. It is, however, a wholly untestable, thus unscientific, claim, as stated. You simply have no way to test that at one or more points in history, say, extraterrestrial genetic engineers "helped" biological development by directly engineering some particularly complex biological attributes that, proposably, could not have occurred given the mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection alone--as just one of many possible scenarios where "something else" is a factor.
-If- such a thing occurred, would we then say evolutionary processes had nothing to do with why animal X had the physical attribute Y? No. Would we then say that evolutionary processes would -fully explain- all the biological features we see? Again, no.
Therefore, we have to be very attentive when the word "evolution" is being used, because what is being implied by it is central to the discussion, and, quite frankly, using "evolution" to "officially" mean things that are testable, but then systematically -implying- it to mean things that are not testable, is extremely common in the arguments of atheism.
I'll amend and ask, "were genetic algorithms involved in producing that human"?
"Algorithms" are something that is designed. So, yes, if you're asking from my perspective, they were involved. However, you don't "get to" claim the same, if you are denying design is a necessary component to the explanation. Same basic thing as your "counterargument" that the universe itself is a computer. Computers are designed. So, ultimately, you are saying we aren't designed because we come from something designed. You are arguing for my position rather than yours, when it comes right down to it.
"I've seen code that was designed to use genetic algorithms. I've yet to see such code generate itself."
Because, that's the question at hand. The OP's argument is that he can write code that implements something broadly similar to evolution (though, for that matter, he could just randomly flip through the attributes and test for meeting the desired conditions and get there a lot faster, so it's unclear what this "proves"), and therefore, it is sufficient to explain... whatever it purports to explain. But, it doesn't, because -him designing the program to do that- is a necessary part of the explanation of how it happened. The design requirement doesn't go away simply by not mentioning it in one's argument. So, likewise, to summarize my position, I agree with Designed Evolution, sometimes referred to as Guided or Theistic Evolution.
Tell me, what type of algorithm produced that human?
I'm glad you used a question rather than a statement, because if you had stated what you're trying to imply, you'd be making a directly untestable and unscientific claim.
I'd prefer to keep the discussion on science, and proposing causal exclusivity to "evolutionary" processes is not science, it's a hopeful non-sequitur and inappropriate generalization. "Evolution occurs", is science. "Only evolution occurs", is not. The fact you only care about the second form, for personal reasons, has nothing to do with science or a scientific usage of "evolution" or "genetic".
You have no idea the sense of irony your statement provides to a theist.
Let's you and I review the state-of-the-art in 150 years, shall we? Feel free to bring along any associates of yours that may be relevant to the more-interesting evolutionary selection mechanisms, while you're at it.
Well, I don't need to "logically escape" from it, because I'm not advocating the censorship, nor is that a logical necessity for someone holding a Christian worldview.
Looking for a definitive position statement on the matter?
No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
--Leviticus 18:6 (NIV)
There you go.
Loaded as the request is, though, whether in a particular instance one would be "burning in hell" because of it would depend on wider circumstances. The majority of Christians would say that this sin, like most, is ultimately forgivable. Myself, I'm a Conditionalist, so the short answer would be "not applicable".
There are indisputable examples on every news station as well.
Now the only thing your listing needs for you to reach baseline intellectual honesty, is to filter the list by which state they are advocating it. By my count, that criterion puts us at zero.
Plus, you get the devastating, unanswerable tactic of True Respawn. Usually, to make it seem fair, games put this in even where it doesn't make any realistic sense.
Formally, a false dichotomy fallacy, in which one -either- is ethical -or- has a reason to be ethical.
You not being able to name yours, nor justify it, nor offer any reason you would feel yourself held to it, this all being for the -express intentional purpose- of having no functional ethics, and the inherent profound irrationality you have even stating such a thing, is the "disease" here.
"Anytime you have one person or a group of persons who interprets the 'will of the people' which then automatically becomes the law of the land they are the same as kings. Period."
The so-called norms you're talking about prescribe death for homosexual behaviour.
No, they don't. If you want to argue about the validity of the progression of viewpoints on the issue by the Christian Church and Judaism over time, then do so. It is however factually false to say that our norms call for this. They don't, we don't, and no one is being put to death for it. That is what our norms -are-.
Further, don't obscure the issue with the weasel-words "homosexual behavior". The bible says not one thing against homosexual orientation per se. It speaks against homosexual sex, which was by definition homosexual promiscuity given the timeframe. That promiscuity be the same thing as was a core origination for the propagation of AIDS, which has killed millions of people. Does that causing-a-pandemic-because-it-feels-nice transform to being good from a non-religious perspective, merely by complaining that religion is against it? "Religion says it's bad, therefore it's good"? Check the results against actual practical recommendations and history, from any ethical perspective, first, please.
... and again with the equivocation, though completely boilerplate parroting on your part, nowhere does the bible say sex is "dirty". You can check Solomon for quite the opposite. It does disagree with certain, arguably degrading, uses of it--which, if we dug only a tiny bit deeper, I expect we can trace the motivation for your argument here right back to your personal rationalizations of the moment.
If something causes more harm than good, then it's unethical. Otherwise, it is not.
Demonstrate that, by reference to material physical reality. That this doesn't work isn't new, Hume thoroughly demonstrated this a long time ago.
... the gene for compassion.
What? Where is that in our DNA, specifically?
And the origin for this rule is three billion years of evolution: In the long run, we will survive as a species if we can build cooperative and well-functioning societies.
The origin of a drive vaguely correlating, in your most hopeful case, to something touching on something related to feelings about something in ethics, maybe. That isn't ethics. That's instincts. As well as, anyone simply stating "Well, your feelings may lead you to feel that way, but my feelings lead me to feel the opposite, so evolution must be validating me rather than you" completely negates your argument. Not to mention the actual history of evolution, in which intertribal -competition-, not cooperation, primarily formed our human attributes. That's why it is completely dysfunctional as a basis for ethics. Evolution only gives you broad instincts, that is, feelings, which may or may not happen to correlation to the correct course of action in a particular case, and they are nowhere nearly fine-grained enough to deal with complex issues on an a priori, axiomatic basis.
It's an enticing thought, and given that it's difficult to even tolerate acknowledging the fact you have no basis for you ethics you can name, and are therefore self-declaredly entirely amoral, and -any- ethical happenstance you have to have, is -totally- owed to cultural assimilation from -religion-, the worldview you deny, and as you do so invalidate yourself... it's understandable on your part.
It just doesn't actually work in any way or have any validity, is all.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll need to elaborate on that. How are you going to determine any plaintext at all in the file (presuming it even is text)? There are no repeating sequences of bytes you could mount a statistical attack on, the very purpose of "chaining" the XOR operations.
If it's that easy, you should be able to pseudocode the crack, here and now.
Chained-XOR (say, XOR-ing with the key byte sequence -and- the preceding file bytes in the last XOR-ing round, with an arbitrary key length) is actually quite secure.
IIRC, it is one of the techniques that automatically qualified an algorithm as an unexportable "munition".
For a small monthly fee, you can retrieve your company e-mails directly from the NSA. Although this will not help with the fact that your "politically connected" competitor will soon inevitably put you out of business due to having all your trade secrets, it does simplify remembering the e-mail address of that guy you think might want to buy the office furniture.
Yes, I know more than you about this, and every related subject. You need to take your poseur ego panhandling elsewhere. You have generated nothing but useless conceptual junk with your "meta-view" method, and neither have nor can present any concerted view with actual useful content. "Not that" is not a position, it is not an accomplishment, it is literally nothing--for another basic logical fallacy among the many you need to have a clue about to achieve the basic abilities at thinking you currently lack, that one's a Reification Fallacy.
If you are wrong, you are wrong, if you are right, you have said nothing about anything with any validity. It's a vacuum of capability on your part you've somehow managed to impress unquestioning others with enough to satisfy your goalless ego-stroking--however, I am not among them.
More thinking, less trolling, if you are capable of it. You're stuck like a broken parrot on the notion of "political manipulation" (and now, that you have been shown to have no basis for your claim, you just desperately rhetorically amplify it with equally-unbacked "violence"), when there is simply no basis for it being relevant, when it could be actually relevant to your argument, before 200 AD.
I don't rely on others. Stop with this ludicrous "all positions are somebody's, therefore whenever I feel like it, I refer to that other somebody and claim my opposition's position is wrong because it's also somebody else's" nonsense. It's childish, and irrational. The specific reason it is formally, provably irrational I have already given you--it is formally a Genetic Fallacy.
I listened, considered, investigated, and now I -know- as fact. I know, you do not, and unfortunately I can't help you with that, because you are willfully refusing to think rationally, and will therefore fail on this and any other philosophical question.
So, still no plausible combination of proposed scriptural change and actual political advantage that would be offered by it. You could have at least parroted some Dan Brown, even if that would put us at laughable levels of historical scholarship.
The rest of your post is all over the map, lots of insults and very little useful content, but to answer what you appear to be staking out as your main relevant counterpoint, on "clean foods"...
Here's a straightforward rationale found with a simple google search, linked mainly for the verse citations. As we see, the number of verses supporting that there was an actual rescoping of expectations corresponding to a direct spiritual rationale, is not singular, but has multiple mutually-reinforcing verses within scripture.
http://www.gotquestions.org/foods.html
On your last part on "finding truth", there is no necessary contradiction between how you came across a truth, and whether it is truth. If you want the formal name of the fallacy of this thinking, it is a Genetic Fallacy. Overall, you simply have rejected a-priori a particular source for your personal reasons, and will fog over resolving questions for yourself with whatever degree of refusal to do the work of discerning what's true (among which are the very basic, stated tools of evaluating internal logical consistency) that is necessary.
The Hour of Code, dedicated to minimizing the tech giants' cost per Hour of Code.
I was just scrolling by, minding my own business; when I saw your little faux passe about the truth in the Bible not changing over time.
You actually didn't address his statement at all. While it's fun to talk about how many books there were, and how many changes there may have been, it actually doesn't make any more difference to the truth of the content than book editions today, or how many may be rejected by a publisher covering the same topic. Far from "whimsical", the criteria, determined at absolute minimum, by people deeply engaged in the topic at the time, was largely consistency with the baseline, most-trusted documents. If the writing lacks consistency with those, or even internally with itself, by any criteria it should be rejected--and that is precisely the basis by which they were. Christians tend to believe that the bible accurately transmits the essential truths of the religion due to the historical guidance of God, but your argument doesn't even rise to being a valid criticism of, say, the most mundane topics such as the creation and selections of a textbook on physics.
And, the notion that the essential truths to be conveyed was selected based on political considerations is highly implausible, as the core was selected by Irenaeus before 200 AD, well before the Catholic Church had notable political power to "protect" by your fanciful notion of "political" motivations. Since you didn't present even the barest notion of some political gain to be had even theoretically, by means of some relevant theological conclusion that could be "manipulated", how about you make something up now, to fill in your argument that much, at least?
If you can name an essential difference in actual doctrine (analogous to presuming wildly varying accepted understandings of physics because of physics books typos or consolidations) that one would derive differently based on the history of the documents, that is, the "truths" that are proposed to be there, to make your argument relevant, then do so and we'll take it from there.
God in the form sold by the 3 majors doesn't exist, it is a logical fallacy.
This in itself is sufficient to demonstrate you have no idea what a logical fallacy is, or how logic is applied. Which fallacy? The real ones are actually formalized and enumerated. Theism is not among them.
I actually belong to a "literal" militia, recognized by the state, and while I don't own a musket I do own the modern equivalent.
This is relevant only insofar as you are agreeing with me. The founding fathers certainly didn't have the precise form of your "militia" in mind when the principle was drafted, yet, I presume you feel it applies. It is also quite-unproblematically used to apply to individuals "bearing arms" in general, though that lacks the precise correspondence to the original text that you claim would make it not "valid".
Your "faith" is my joke, that you deign to scold me is evidence enough of your unrelenting arrogance, anyone of merit would have skimmed past my post, but you took it personally.
Yawn. You might be able to troll me with that if I didn't know otherwise as fact. We'll take up the discussion to elaborate on the question at a much-later date, though. Your participation non-optional.
Neither the U.S. nor Russia has been able to defeat a bunch of desert-dwellers with rifles during either country's sustained military campaigns.
Such asymmetric warfare would the the last thing to overcome, waged likely better by standard U.S. citizens than the Taliban, -if- they survived all the ICBM's, sub-launched missiles, stealth and conventional bombers, Army, and Marines--to name a few.
Engaging in such a thing would only be a catastrophically foolish thing for any country to attempt, and they know it. "Parity" is simply an ongoing game to benefit the military-industrial complex and the perceived "prestige" of the leadership, on the backs of the citizens. The U.S. could easily freeze at 1950 levels, and we'd remain quite certainly unattacked--freeing up tremendous resources where we are -actually- at threat of losing to China and Russia, economically.
... in order to be valid it must remain unchanged.
No, it doesn't. It shares the same process of contextual application as... most every domain of human activity. Is the U.S. Constitution "valid"? Does the fact we now aren't talking about literal militias and muskets in applying it, invalidate the principles?
Feel free to continue making up universally logically-impossible criteria and false definitions, such as the meaning of "faith", and wishfully projecting that onto religious practice, though. Enjoy. We'll just continue on with what it actually is, and what we actually do.
I'll try to make appropriate assumptions about your views and premises to address your questions in a way you'll find clearer.
What do you mean by 'proposing causal exclusivity to "evolutionary" processes'?
By "causal exclusivity" I mean that the proposed effect (in this case, human existence in our current form) would be fully explained by the proposed cause. Usually, the reason this distinction needs to be made is because an argument that is being made is really a "false dichotomy" fallacy, like this:
Statement asked:
"Do you accept 'evolution'?"
Implied meaning:
"Do you think we have our current biological form and attributes 100% because of (naturalistic) evolution, or 0% because of evolution?"
My answer is "neither". The question is being framed such that no answer can be correct.
Very few people (including theists) would say "0%", particularly because simple hybridization is itself a form of evolution, and hybridization is uncontroversial both in terms of direct testable experience, and, for that matter, is directly described and supported in scripture.
Considerably more would say "100%", or rather, would not actually directly claim that, but rather will avoid analysis by simply using the term "evolution" to -imply- that, and thereby avoid further questions without having to discuss the specifics. Generally, the people strongly advocating this "implying 100%" position are atheists, who feel they need to believe it's 100% attributable to evolution because their personal choice as to philosophical stance requires that they believe that. It is, however, a wholly untestable, thus unscientific, claim, as stated. You simply have no way to test that at one or more points in history, say, extraterrestrial genetic engineers "helped" biological development by directly engineering some particularly complex biological attributes that, proposably, could not have occurred given the mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection alone--as just one of many possible scenarios where "something else" is a factor.
-If- such a thing occurred, would we then say evolutionary processes had nothing to do with why animal X had the physical attribute Y? No. Would we then say that evolutionary processes would -fully explain- all the biological features we see? Again, no.
Therefore, we have to be very attentive when the word "evolution" is being used, because what is being implied by it is central to the discussion, and, quite frankly, using "evolution" to "officially" mean things that are testable, but then systematically -implying- it to mean things that are not testable, is extremely common in the arguments of atheism.
I'll amend and ask, "were genetic algorithms involved in producing that human"?
"Algorithms" are something that is designed. So, yes, if you're asking from my perspective, they were involved. However, you don't "get to" claim the same, if you are denying design is a necessary component to the explanation. Same basic thing as your "counterargument" that the universe itself is a computer. Computers are designed. So, ultimately, you are saying we aren't designed because we come from something designed. You are arguing for my position rather than yours, when it comes right down to it.
"I've seen code that was designed to use genetic algorithms. I've yet to see such code generate itself."
Because, that's the question at hand. The OP's argument is that he can write code that implements something broadly similar to evolution (though, for that matter, he could just randomly flip through the attributes and test for meeting the desired conditions and get there a lot faster, so it's unclear what this "proves"), and therefore, it is sufficient to explain... whatever it purports to explain. But, it doesn't, because -him designing the program to do that- is a necessary part of the explanation of how it happened. The design requirement doesn't go away simply by not mentioning it in one's argument. So, likewise, to summarize my position, I agree with Designed Evolution, sometimes referred to as Guided or Theistic Evolution.
Tell me, what type of algorithm produced that human?
I'm glad you used a question rather than a statement, because if you had stated what you're trying to imply, you'd be making a directly untestable and unscientific claim.
I'd prefer to keep the discussion on science, and proposing causal exclusivity to "evolutionary" processes is not science, it's a hopeful non-sequitur and inappropriate generalization. "Evolution occurs", is science. "Only evolution occurs", is not. The fact you only care about the second form, for personal reasons, has nothing to do with science or a scientific usage of "evolution" or "genetic".
Even so, I'd like to see you outwit one.
You have no idea the sense of irony your statement provides to a theist.
Let's you and I review the state-of-the-art in 150 years, shall we? Feel free to bring along any associates of yours that may be relevant to the more-interesting evolutionary selection mechanisms, while you're at it.
I've seen code that was designed to use genetic algorithms. I've yet to see such code generate itself.
Consider this my acknowledgment of all one of you.
Well, I don't need to "logically escape" from it, because I'm not advocating the censorship, nor is that a logical necessity for someone holding a Christian worldview.
Looking for a definitive position statement on the matter?
No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
--Leviticus 18:6 (NIV)
There you go.
Loaded as the request is, though, whether in a particular instance one would be "burning in hell" because of it would depend on wider circumstances. The majority of Christians would say that this sin, like most, is ultimately forgivable. Myself, I'm a Conditionalist, so the short answer would be "not applicable".
indisputable examples of Incest in the Bible
There are indisputable examples on every news station as well.
Now the only thing your listing needs for you to reach baseline intellectual honesty, is to filter the list by which state they are advocating it. By my count, that criterion puts us at zero.
Plus, you get the devastating, unanswerable tactic of True Respawn. Usually, to make it seem fair, games put this in even where it doesn't make any realistic sense.
...and for those of us who think that ads -are- malware, just targeted at a different processor, AdBlock still takes out two birds with one stone...
Nonsense.
Formally, a false dichotomy fallacy, in which one -either- is ethical -or- has a reason to be ethical.
You not being able to name yours, nor justify it, nor offer any reason you would feel yourself held to it, this all being for the -express intentional purpose- of having no functional ethics, and the inherent profound irrationality you have even stating such a thing, is the "disease" here.
"Anytime you have one person or a group of persons who interprets the 'will of the people' which then automatically becomes the law of the land they are the same as kings. Period."
Do you object equally to this modified form?
The so-called norms you're talking about prescribe death for homosexual behaviour.
... and again with the equivocation, though completely boilerplate parroting on your part, nowhere does the bible say sex is "dirty". You can check Solomon for quite the opposite. It does disagree with certain, arguably degrading, uses of it--which, if we dug only a tiny bit deeper, I expect we can trace the motivation for your argument here right back to your personal rationalizations of the moment.
No, they don't. If you want to argue about the validity of the progression of viewpoints on the issue by the Christian Church and Judaism over time, then do so. It is however factually false to say that our norms call for this. They don't, we don't, and no one is being put to death for it. That is what our norms -are-.
Further, don't obscure the issue with the weasel-words "homosexual behavior". The bible says not one thing against homosexual orientation per se. It speaks against homosexual sex, which was by definition homosexual promiscuity given the timeframe. That promiscuity be the same thing as was a core origination for the propagation of AIDS, which has killed millions of people. Does that causing-a-pandemic-because-it-feels-nice transform to being good from a non-religious perspective, merely by complaining that religion is against it? "Religion says it's bad, therefore it's good"? Check the results against actual practical recommendations and history, from any ethical perspective, first, please.
If something causes more harm than good, then it's unethical. Otherwise, it is not.
... the gene for compassion.
Demonstrate that, by reference to material physical reality. That this doesn't work isn't new, Hume thoroughly demonstrated this a long time ago.
What? Where is that in our DNA, specifically?
And the origin for this rule is three billion years of evolution: In the long run, we will survive as a species if we can build cooperative and well-functioning societies.
The origin of a drive vaguely correlating, in your most hopeful case, to something touching on something related to feelings about something in ethics, maybe. That isn't ethics. That's instincts. As well as, anyone simply stating "Well, your feelings may lead you to feel that way, but my feelings lead me to feel the opposite, so evolution must be validating me rather than you" completely negates your argument. Not to mention the actual history of evolution, in which intertribal -competition-, not cooperation, primarily formed our human attributes. That's why it is completely dysfunctional as a basis for ethics. Evolution only gives you broad instincts, that is, feelings, which may or may not happen to correlation to the correct course of action in a particular case, and they are nowhere nearly fine-grained enough to deal with complex issues on an a priori, axiomatic basis.
It's an enticing thought, and given that it's difficult to even tolerate acknowledging the fact you have no basis for you ethics you can name, and are therefore self-declaredly entirely amoral, and -any- ethical happenstance you have to have, is -totally- owed to cultural assimilation from -religion-, the worldview you deny, and as you do so invalidate yourself... it's understandable on your part.
It just doesn't actually work in any way or have any validity, is all.