I'm a geek and intellectually curious, and I happen to enjoy watching Friends.
I haven't watched that show in a long time (I no longer own a TV* - not that I would watch Friends if I did have a TV. Anyway, I digress...) but the last time I watched it I saw six young, not completely unattractive, privileged people freaking out over a pair of shoes. I mean, these shoes became some sort of dilemma that the whole lot of them felt compelled to solve... They had to pool their resources on the whole sordid shoe issue. This footwear conundrum consumed their continuously dwindling existences. Would they tell the tale of the shoe to their grandchildren? When they got to the party would they regale the enraptured crowd in attendance with the anectdotal treasure that was "earlier this evening"? I can almost hear one of them raucously spitting the line "Goody, two shoes!"
Hardly compelling viewing... or perhaps just not my sort of comedy;)
* I am being a little disingenuous here - I do have a TV card but that's mostly used for capturing VHS tapes.
It's called democracy. Change the hearts and minds of the masses and then you can have your way. Don't like that? I know of no other option than to suggest revolution or move to another place. Here's the challenge: What do you do when your value system and mine directly conflict? What if your value system called for you to consume large quantities of alcohol then barf on my lawn. What about what I want?
It's called representative democracy - a completely different idea to democracy. Democracy is a forum where the most popular ideas are approved or denied on a case by case basis by the population who are affected by these decisions. Representative democracy is, effectively, a diluted electoral system which accentuates the political impotence of the masses in the face of big business lobbyists. To take an idea from an earlier post of yours, show me a healthy, happy western democracy. You know, no epidemic of crime, murder and dissent sort of idea...
What's to say the lack of law would result in a vomit covered lawn? I'm just trying (repeatedly) to make the point that if courtesy and respect were as important in the education system as attaining personal wealth then I doubt that a vomitous lawn would be a concern and the law's heavy hand might not be necessary.
So, you suggest that the law is unfair or unjustly limiting your personal freedoms, and that you want to be freed to live out the values that you choose because you are a responsible person. Can you see that the culture around you has laws to restrain behavior, and even with that help, people seem largely unable or unwilling to take that responsibility? It seems to me that removal of law would worsen not help that problem.
I already made this point a few times. What I asked for is an explanation for the lack of personal responsibility in most of the population. Have you got an explanation outside the greed encouraged by advertising and the education system?
Anecdotes do not a good study make. As I read on this issue (and I do read lay literature with some regularity - not the journals themselves) it seems to me that the studies indicate that the relative mental health you assess in your friends is not consistent with the homosexual population at large. The science appears pretty clear here. Can you point to scientific analysis on this issue that supports your experience?
Actually, my source is the very GLMA study you "cited" (no link) in an earlier post. Note how high this anxiety and depression appears on the list - the number three risk - way before anything even mentioning the anus. Higher up even than hepatitis - serious shit.
Will you please define homophobia? The reason I ask is that I want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing. If tolerance is a part of your response, would you kindly define that term for me? My belief is that the colloquial use of that word differs significantly from the denotative meaning, and I want to make sure that we mean the same thing when we use emotionally charged words.
I'd like to start by pointing out a fundamental fact that seems to be missing from your logic... Homosexuality is not a choice. For such a worldly traveller and intense thinker I'd have thought such a thing would be immediately obvious, but it seems the doctrine behind your faith has clouded your judgment. It's not a "lifestyle" or a "perversion", it's your sexuality. You're born with it. If this wasn't the case then why would you choose it? It merely invites trouble from those with a zeal for faith. It being a choice makes no sense - its like choosing the path of most resistance for the reward of eternal damnation. The idea of homosexuality being unnatural is just a symptom of the puritan hangover that afflicts our society... The virtue of overcompensation, an obsession with a dignity of our
Divorce is detrimental because thousands of studies have consistently shown that children have the best opportunity to grow up and be productive members of society when there is a mother and a father in the home...
Agreed, but if the mother and father constantly fight it's also detrimental. Better they have the option of an alternative arrangement. Either way, people shouldn't be forced into a situation that they don't want to be in or is harmful to those around them. Feelings and situations change - we should recognise that.
My issue isn't with family values and all that, it's the fact that people who don't share all those views are forced to live by them when they are written in law. Isn't that unfair?
So what if it hurts only you and the other person? Should it be legal then? I don't think so. You are a part of society and we all bear the cost of psychological and medical care for people who make bad choices. From the alcoholic with liver damage, to the drug addict who has no insurance and needs emergency care, to the increased health complications of *all* bad health choices. For what it's worth, I think that we should do something to address the financial implications of the obesity epidemic sweeping the US these days.
But that doesn't count - you've affected the life of another negatively and are not entitled to do that. I don't like drug abuse, but I do think there are benefits to responsible recreational drug use. I think most every record I own is performed by someone who indulged in some sort of recreational substance use - we may have records in common in our collections. The blanket outlawing of this due to the inherited inability to practice personal responsibility is what I find objectionable. I don't drink/drug to the point of incapacitation. I don't need care. My health is good. I can't see that changing.
As for obesity, it's a difficult issue. It is a symptom of this complete lack of individual responsibility I've brought up a few times now. I can nearly hear the guy going in for his third quarter-pounder of the morning... "Well, it's legal. They can't stop me!" You do recognise this - is your explanation for it different to mine?
Homosexuality is unhealthy for people...
Meh. I think the risks are overstated. None of my gay friends are particularly unhealthy. A few of them suffer one of the major risks on the list - depression. This is mainly due to social persecution due to ideas inherited from our religious-right establishment. Homophobia hurts more than anal sex.
Are there different health issues? Of course, but the fact that the risks are different doesn't make that lifestyle overall more dangerous. Most of the guys I know who are gay have one long term partner and are well educated about the risks surrounding sex. A lot of the straight guys I know are out picking up someone new every weekend.
The level of education in the gay community is a lot higher exactly because the risks are different - I could make the argument that your average young gay guy is less at risk of STDs and so on than your average young straight guy because the straight guy just doesn't know or care enough to look after his health.
I've never made an argument in favor of outlawing contraception, but I can see that it's possible to argue for that. In the US, we have a problem. The number of Americans headed for retirement age is huge. The baby boomer generation is going to begin to collect social security, and the number of people paying into the social security system is dwindling. If we had not allowed 40 million legal abortions in the last 35 years, we'd have at least 30 million + more adults in the US who could have helped contribute to the economy and also pay taxes to help support the boomers.
Having more kids is *not* bad for society or the economy. There are consequenses of extramarital sex, even without pregnancy or STDs, there are emotional pr
Don't we all? Of course all of us want to do what we want. Ask a newborn baby about that! The fact is that we share this space and interact with each other mean that we do need "rules of the road" as you pointed out in a former posting.
My point was that people are so dumb that they are unable to consider allowing somebody to cross the road without a flashing light telling them it's OK - Pavlovian dogs, coniditioned to follow law without question. We wouldn't need it if we had a social structure built on respect and courtesy instead of one based on attaining material goods at the expense of everything else, including the planet we inhabit. I don't ever remember in school learning about respect for others apart from token biblical references.
I can give you small examples of society without law functioning but within big cities the only thing you can do is herd people with force. The empires of capitalist achievement aren't a natural state of organisation - they're the equivalent of high capacity feed lines, designed to get the most efficient output from the herd. The introduction of free enterprise assured infinite growth means that these will become more intensely concentrated and unbearable to dwell within as the corporations who power them want to attain more profit. The fact that the senseless pursuit of profit goes unquestioned, even though the smallest amount of thought exposes it as futile just affirms my thought on the mental state of Western society.
You couldn't repeal the law books tomorrow - it would be chaos. Most people don't bother to think about the consequences of their actions. They have the intelligence but the law has made decision making so easy for them for so long that they've lost the ability to think for themselves. There has to be a mass reawakening, an intellectual enrichment of the entire culture before any change can take place. This is unlikely to happen while most chew their cud in front of 6 hours of TV a day. I don't know if you watch television, but I gave it up - I found it a very negative influence in my life. It precluded my ability to think clearly. The shows are contrived to lull you into a sort of numb complacency and the documentaries and news shows were so carefully constructed to bring you around to some arbitrary point-of-view that it was nigh-on impossible to resist. It's a tragedy that such a useful tool was abused in this way, but with the manufacture of consent high in the minds of those who fund it, it was really inevitable.
Wouldn't it be great to give people their minds back? Allow people to exercise their personal responsibility instead of marching through this landscape of drones?
You need the law. If there are laws you dislike, get them changed!
I don't need law - I have a mind. I don't recognise the law of this land as a sensible path to follow. Still haven't killed anyone or stolen anything. Gee, how do I do it?
Getting laws changed is no trivial task. You say that as if it's as easy as writing a letter.
Zimbabwe is not a valid example of a society built not to require the rule of law. Firstly, it's a dictatorship - the ultimate and most barbaric practice of law. Law exists there and you do not mess with it or you will die. Also, a lot of the former British Empire is messed up - everywhere they went they left war, dictatorship and trouble behind. Zimbabwe is no exception.
I get the feeling that you haven't exposed yourself to a lot of political thought alternative to the system you now live under. Your replies all smack of pamphlet rhetoric rather than having any semblance of reflection behind them. It's as if you've blindly accepted everything taught to you without an iota of analysis. How do you know these people were telling you the truth? I mean, if you just believe what's been repeated to you since birth then how can you be sure there's any truth to it at all? I find exposing myself to alternative philosophies and questioning everything es
Let me see: Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Nicolai Chauchescu, et al - big followers of organized religion?
Point taken. They were more the greed/mindshare type. What about the persecution of peoples going on today? Quite a bit of holy-book-thumping involved.
There are those who do evil in the name of honoring God, but that is not the logical outworking of a faith in Christ. On the other hand, a belief that all truth is relative and there are no absolutes *does* provide fertile ground for doing evil. After all, what you call evil I might call good.
I know that most of the faithful are peaceful people, it's just that religion has the potential for firing people up for war and persecution more than just about anything else that comes to mind. All without proof, I might add. I already attributed a lot of the evil in the world to plain old greed - I do recognise that it's not all religion. I'm not sure if the positive influence or religion outweighs the evils of its negative. That's a lot of dead people back there...
All truth is relative - it's tainted by perception. That's why we must take great pains to make sure we try to get all the facts. As I said before, my truths aren't set in stone. They're subject to change based on new information and new ideas. The thing is, until then this is all I have to work with. Indeed, what I call evil you might call good and idealistic compromise is no mean feat to achieve but a recognition that absolute truth is elusive does not preclude the ability to think and does not negate the value of cognition.
I note you're omitting a lot of the points I'm making for some reason. I'd like to return to the idea of law if I might. I find a lot of it evil. Sure, there's stuff that most of us can agree with like assault, murder and (if you like to own things) damage to or theft of property. The rest of it smacks of either religiously inspired restriction of personal freedom or mindless beaurocracy that seems designed purely to make life difficult. If I might focus again on the idea of vices and religion...
You believe god created free will, right? You may also agree that it is his greatest achievement... I think the ability to think and choose independently is great myself. Does law deny free will? If you don't choose yourself through thought but are guided by strict adherence to law is your virtue assured? Is denying the freedom of will an affront to god?
This is part of the reason for my.sig, which started all this. Religion influences my existence and restricts the choices I can make for no reason I am able to fathom. If you know why please explain it to me - I want my free will! This is unchanging and absolute. Science, on the other hand, is an amorphous entity of reason and knowledge - an enabler, forever changing and growing. Most people object to the idea of scientific research based on shocking images in the press, such as that mouse with a human ear on its back. It's stark, but you can't deny it's also fascinating. Then again, I do enjoy horror movies:)
I just chose the contrast because Science V Religion is an age old and rather tired argument. It's meant to be humourous more than anything else.
On what do you base your fundamental belief that it's wrong? For that matter, what does wrong mean? How do you know?
Very simple. So close to one's face that most don't see it.
To suffer isn't pleasant. It should be reduced. I can help by not inflict suffering on another - simple as that. It's basic empathy.
Is your problem is the fact that there's no eternal damnation for those who do bad things? There isn't even an earthly punishment for most of them. Most people who do bad things think they already have god on their side anyway... You don't hear of atheist geurillas attacking agnostic enclaves... </cheap shot>;)
Truth be told, I don't know. I just took the evidence I had and boiled it down to that conclusion. The fact that I don't know for certain doesn't bother me as I have a fairly clear idea my idea is correct with plenty of evidence to back it up. I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure. It's not that objectionable a philosophy, is it? To do no harm? My ideas aren't set in stone, either. They're always subject to change and they quite often do. A conclusion is only where you stop thinking:)
You could think of it like this... Humans (as well as other social animals) are born with natural altruistic tendencies. Whether you believe we evolved them or they were put there isn't relevant - they exist. The desire to help others is part of what we are (until something like common greed takes it from us). This tendency helps our species survive - obstacles to survival are easier dealt with in groups and we think better when we can talk our ideas out with another. Let's face it, if this wasn't a natural tendency then what is communication for?
So, at a fundamental level not harming another is beneficial to the whole species. It aids our survival and makes for a happy life.
Take a look at the other side of the coin. If you are greedy and, for want of a better term, fuck over people to get what you want then the repurcussions of that ripple outwards too. You know yourself that your average war is over one of two things... My god has bigger cojones than your god or that's mine, give it to me - both can be considered a land grab.
Right and wrong? They're just concepts invented by us to begin with. There's no cosmic justice keeping it all in check, it's just a mechanism we have for deciding if what we do is beneficial. I like to think of it like this: Right benefits all of us. Wrong benefits a single individual. Am I right? Who knows?
Look, I don't think that I'm likely to change your mind here, but I do want to take a minute to say that I'm sorry for the way that people have treated you in the name of Christ.
Don't apologise - you didn't do anything. I'm over it - I just worry about other people I know still under the influence who I know are going to guilt themselves into an early grave.
In response to your question about "what if I'd never been exposed to religion" I think I'd have to say that as a worldview, rationalism doesn't work. It works well in certain areas - fact-based areas like science. It totally fails in the context of human relationships. Concepts like duty, honor, and self-sacrificial love are frankly completely irrational. The "just the facts" kind of world view has many many inadequacies. It only works in a narrow part of the human experience.
This is fair enough but the problem is emotive arguments dictate too much of what should be rational. What do you hear more often in political debate, "Let's think about this for a second" or "Think of the children*!"
Emotion is important in human relationships but rational thought is at least as important. Being able to think before we act is essential in every situation.
There's also too much religion in politics. It gets on my nerves when my representatives talk about god or special relationships with the church - this bullshit has as much to do with the maintenance of infrastructure as the colour of my eyes. Just take care of the damned plumbing and keep your faith to yourself, thanks!
I won't address your beliefs. You are perfectly entitled to hold them and I don't share them. You'll see that my issue isn't your faith but the fact that the religion behind it affects my life even though I don't subscribe to it.
Why do we care about "vice" laws? It's because we care about people. If something is dangerous, we generally believe as a culture that laws should exist to teach people not to do dangerous things. Seat belts are measurably beneficial for human safety. That's a reason that laws exist to compel people to wear them. The law is a teacher. I want laws to exist to protect my family and to help society at large "work."
I can't smoke a joint for the same reason I have to wear a seatbelt? Bull.
There are two reasons the law exists. The first reason is to preserve power. All governments have laws to protect themselves just like christianity has The First Commandment. This betrays a fear in the entity who passed this law - they're actually scared about the fact that we're a fickle bunch - we'll hang on to what's best available so they need "If you believe in something else Bad Things Will Happen". Doesn't matter if it's communism or Buddha, you're in trouble now, pal!
Now, this is also embedded in the education system. Alongside my religious education was a political one all about how the solutions the government came up with were in my best interests and beyond my understanding so best just get on with it and not make waves. When you're taught not to question, the law becomes the ultimate arbiter of morality rather than the individual. This leads to the second reason.
Under this system people are left incapable of making decisions beyond the choice of which fine, fine products to buy. Anything other than that confuses them so they turn to the law to decide what to do or not do. Watch out for it - many people think "illegal" is the same thing as "immoral" - if this was true then the entire world would be under one set of laws, no? This is reflected in the fact that everything bad that happens results in some new piece of legislation... People stopped seeing law as a guide a long time ago - now they think the law is supposed to protect them somehow. Hard cheese, bud... a lot of bad stuff happens that we have no control over!
Back when I had faith in humanity and thought there was a solution in anarchism I used to be asked
Of course, everyone likes a clever smart remark, but of course you realize that martyrdom is not particularly compelling. The 'corpse on a stick' is the only one with the power to come back from death. The power of Christianity is not in a dead Christ, but in one who willingly paid the necessary penalty for my sin, (and yours) and had the power to overcome death.
I am aware of the beliefs of christianity. I was raised Catholic and I still have things to resolve about that. Did you know that when I was a child they told me I'd go to a pit of eternal, burning fire for telling a fib (or later, using contraception)? Seems like a pretty messed up thing to tell a kid, but I don't worry about the pit any more.
It was the day I realised that this pit of eternal, burning fire was total bullshit to keep you fearfully following another line of total bullshit that I started feeling a lot better about myself. Realising that sex isn't sinful, but great fun. Realising that my body is only here for a short time and that my enforced religion would steer me away from all experimentation with it - I'd die without having experienced anything other than a phony "joy" in the "knowledge" that some dead guy somehow loves me (and, of course, wants me to burn in an eternal pit of fire if I piss him off).
You see, here's the thing... This religion they'd gifted me with was nothing more than a mechanism to keep me well behaved. A strong work ethic, a belief in marriage, spewing out more christian soldiers - it didn't appeal to me, but it was the path they'd chosen for me - fuck that! I have a life, I'm not going to squander it on this righteous drudgery.
What have you got to back up the "fact" that Jesus died for your sins other than the fact that it was pushed into your head from birth backed up by a healthy dose of fear to keep it there? Or perhaps you could answer this... If you had never been exposed to religion - no supreme beings, sin, churches etc - until adulthood would you find it totally rational? Would you take to it with aplomb or would you have a few questions for the guy with the book?
Get 'em young...
I was about to submit this and a thought occurred... Why do christians campaign for vice laws? Surely if you don't have the free will to choose your sin then your virtue is a little hollow. Are they afraid of temptation so they need another layer of fear to keep them away from the odd card game or porn mag?
FWIW - those of us who are serious followers of Christ are not opponents of good science. Many of us see little good science these days. Much of the good science from antiquity and from today happens to come from people whose worldview is based on an ordered creation from an intelligent designer rather than on matter, time and chance.
"Good science"? Don't make me choke. The beliefs of the scientist don't matter an iota as long as those beliefs don't affect his observations. Or do you mean research is venturing into fields which you find disturbing? You see, that doesn't really make the science "good" or "bad" - that generally refers to the methodology.
As time goes on and our understanding improves we will want to delve deeper into what makes us, and everything around us, tick - without resorting to "God did it!" (because that would be incredibly bad science). As our field of understanding improves people will find the nature of the research more visceral and disturbing... which seems to be a natural reaction for christians...
Let's take the classic example of Leonardo Da Vinci. If the church found out that he was examining dead bodies to understand the operation of them he would have been excommunicated - and that was no fun back then. The work was a little gruesome, but he described the nature of death and the circulatory & nervous systems and much more. The thing is, old Leo was a bit of a jack of all trades - excelled at everything. He couldn't leave our place in the universe alo
Dino is obviously a vegetarian (a Brontosaurus-type dinosaur)...
Brontosaurus? There's no such thing. Although since you are referring to a cartoon brontosaurus-type thing from before the time they knew it didn't exist you'll probably be forgiven any way and I'll be forever tainted as some sort of pedantic troll...
Yeah, I think the poster neglected to actually read your Subject line and assumed you were talking about WMP. How they got modded insightful for this I do not know (Ah... refreshed the page... Modded troll for poor comprehension skills:) ).
As for amaroK, I must admit it's nice but I know where my albums are and I got bored with statistics about 8 seconds before I deleted my audioscrobbler account. I use Beep if I'm running X.
Though... I still play a couple of times a year. I see it as a very high-risk investment. I'm willing to invest that dollar in the government's coffers on the off chance that I'll get an astronomical return. If not, then eh, I like roads, hospitals, and the likes (I don't gamble in private casinos though, that's just pathological IMO).
Well, that's not exactly overboard:)
My parents play the Irish Lotto here twice a week. I make sure to keep the number of times I point out the fact that if they had been saving that money they'd have about 10,000 quid now to a minimum;)
It doesn't go into the same kitty as tax revenue here AFAIK. It's donated to charities and such so it's not all bad, I guess. Still, there are people around here who spend their pensions on scratch cards - I can't get behind that. The adverts are terrible, as well - at least they were back when I watched TV. No real indication that you may not win. Sure, people are supposed to know that but my confidence in people knowing things they should is fairly low.
And horoscopes are good for a laugh! I like to compare them from different sources on the same day, to see how wildly off they all can simultaneously be.
The best one I ever saw said "Today is a good day to consult your astrologist"... the people in te restaurant were wondering why I was suddenly laughing maniacally from reading the paper : )
As long as you keep laughing. If you start planning your day around it it's time to check into Belleview.
I'm also working on the notion that there is something to the idea that the month of your birth could have a developmental influence on your mind... at what age was your first spring? First fall? At what stage of maturing was your brain when that happened? That kind of stuff. Chicks who are into astrology can tell you things about your personality simply from your sign. I'm 100% sure that has nothing to do with the shape or colours of the stars, but they are right too often to be a coincidence all the time. Just because the explanation of the phenomenon is crap, doesn't make their observations and predictions any less valid.
You see all the seasons before you're 1 year old...
However, it has been observed that children born later in the year are more prone to depression. Not sure how accurate that is but I was born in December and can't get out of bed most mornings.:)
As for being able to derive personality traits from your star sign... I bet if I was flattering enough you'd agree with anything. "Pisces? Oh, you're a strong individual with a free spirit" and so on...;)
Grandparent post: Yep.. God killed the Neanderthalls. Thats being an Intelligent Designer.
And he left their bones to test our faith.
Hmmm... Seems to be an amusing gibe at the expense of that whole fossils theory.
Parent post: And God didn't give freewill to humans and everything that happens on earth is his choosing.
I love it when secularists like yourselves show their inner hate toward those of faith.
"Yep...people of faith are morons and I hate them. That's being an open minded liberal."
Hmmm... Don't understand how this reaction could be prompted by such a light-hearte... Oh, wait. He said secularist. Now I get it - everybody who doesn't have "True Faith" is a woolly-minded, liberal pot-smoker bent on the destruction of all that is good and holy in the world. Good, holy things like mass murder, denial of free-will and subjugation of women. Gimme that old-time religium! </rhetoric>
Don't whine at us because your logic deficiency precludes having the ability to tell the difference between an imaginary friend and a real friend. Trust me, if you didn't have that faith shit pushed into your head with the twin fangs of sin and guilt back when your head was still soft you would be a much happier person today.
I'm not open-minded - I don't have the sort of time required to listen to everybody's point of view. I shave down the time required to hear what something's all about by cutting out people whose reasoning skills I don't respect. If you have an imaginary friend I'm not going to take you too seriously on other matters - same if you read horoscopes or partake in the lottery... I'm no Spock but I do know how to spot someone with a severe logic deficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't watched that show in a long time (I no longer own a TV* - not that I would watch Friends if I did have a TV. Anyway, I digress...) but the last time I watched it I saw six young, not completely unattractive, privileged people freaking out over a pair of shoes. I mean, these shoes became some sort of dilemma that the whole lot of them felt compelled to solve... They had to pool their resources on the whole sordid shoe issue. This footwear conundrum consumed their continuously dwindling existences. Would they tell the tale of the shoe to their grandchildren? When they got to the party would they regale the enraptured crowd in attendance with the anectdotal treasure that was "earlier this evening"? I can almost hear one of them raucously spitting the line "Goody, two shoes!"
Hardly compelling viewing... or perhaps just not my sort of comedy
* I am being a little disingenuous here - I do have a TV card but that's mostly used for capturing VHS tapes.
There's source code for a kernel hook for the binary driver. The actual core of the driver is neither Open Source or Free Software.
It's called representative democracy - a completely different idea to democracy. Democracy is a forum where the most popular ideas are approved or denied on a case by case basis by the population who are affected by these decisions. Representative democracy is, effectively, a diluted electoral system which accentuates the political impotence of the masses in the face of big business lobbyists. To take an idea from an earlier post of yours, show me a healthy, happy western democracy. You know, no epidemic of crime, murder and dissent sort of idea...
What's to say the lack of law would result in a vomit covered lawn? I'm just trying (repeatedly) to make the point that if courtesy and respect were as important in the education system as attaining personal wealth then I doubt that a vomitous lawn would be a concern and the law's heavy hand might not be necessary.
I already made this point a few times. What I asked for is an explanation for the lack of personal responsibility in most of the population. Have you got an explanation outside the greed encouraged by advertising and the education system?
Actually, my source is the very GLMA study you "cited" (no link) in an earlier post. Note how high this anxiety and depression appears on the list - the number three risk - way before anything even mentioning the anus. Higher up even than hepatitis - serious shit.
I'd like to start by pointing out a fundamental fact that seems to be missing from your logic... Homosexuality is not a choice. For such a worldly traveller and intense thinker I'd have thought such a thing would be immediately obvious, but it seems the doctrine behind your faith has clouded your judgment. It's not a "lifestyle" or a "perversion", it's your sexuality. You're born with it. If this wasn't the case then why would you choose it? It merely invites trouble from those with a zeal for faith. It being a choice makes no sense - its like choosing the path of most resistance for the reward of eternal damnation. The idea of homosexuality being unnatural is just a symptom of the puritan hangover that afflicts our society... The virtue of overcompensation, an obsession with a dignity of our
Anybody remember ZeoSync?
Agreed, but if the mother and father constantly fight it's also detrimental. Better they have the option of an alternative arrangement. Either way, people shouldn't be forced into a situation that they don't want to be in or is harmful to those around them. Feelings and situations change - we should recognise that.
My issue isn't with family values and all that, it's the fact that people who don't share all those views are forced to live by them when they are written in law. Isn't that unfair?
But that doesn't count - you've affected the life of another negatively and are not entitled to do that. I don't like drug abuse, but I do think there are benefits to responsible recreational drug use. I think most every record I own is performed by someone who indulged in some sort of recreational substance use - we may have records in common in our collections. The blanket outlawing of this due to the inherited inability to practice personal responsibility is what I find objectionable. I don't drink/drug to the point of incapacitation. I don't need care. My health is good. I can't see that changing.
As for obesity, it's a difficult issue. It is a symptom of this complete lack of individual responsibility I've brought up a few times now. I can nearly hear the guy going in for his third quarter-pounder of the morning... "Well, it's legal. They can't stop me!" You do recognise this - is your explanation for it different to mine?
Meh. I think the risks are overstated. None of my gay friends are particularly unhealthy. A few of them suffer one of the major risks on the list - depression. This is mainly due to social persecution due to ideas inherited from our religious-right establishment. Homophobia hurts more than anal sex.
Are there different health issues? Of course, but the fact that the risks are different doesn't make that lifestyle overall more dangerous. Most of the guys I know who are gay have one long term partner and are well educated about the risks surrounding sex. A lot of the straight guys I know are out picking up someone new every weekend.
The level of education in the gay community is a lot higher exactly because the risks are different - I could make the argument that your average young gay guy is less at risk of STDs and so on than your average young straight guy because the straight guy just doesn't know or care enough to look after his health.
My point was that people are so dumb that they are unable to consider allowing somebody to cross the road without a flashing light telling them it's OK - Pavlovian dogs, coniditioned to follow law without question. We wouldn't need it if we had a social structure built on respect and courtesy instead of one based on attaining material goods at the expense of everything else, including the planet we inhabit. I don't ever remember in school learning about respect for others apart from token biblical references.
I can give you small examples of society without law functioning but within big cities the only thing you can do is herd people with force. The empires of capitalist achievement aren't a natural state of organisation - they're the equivalent of high capacity feed lines, designed to get the most efficient output from the herd. The introduction of free enterprise assured infinite growth means that these will become more intensely concentrated and unbearable to dwell within as the corporations who power them want to attain more profit. The fact that the senseless pursuit of profit goes unquestioned, even though the smallest amount of thought exposes it as futile just affirms my thought on the mental state of Western society.
You couldn't repeal the law books tomorrow - it would be chaos. Most people don't bother to think about the consequences of their actions. They have the intelligence but the law has made decision making so easy for them for so long that they've lost the ability to think for themselves. There has to be a mass reawakening, an intellectual enrichment of the entire culture before any change can take place. This is unlikely to happen while most chew their cud in front of 6 hours of TV a day. I don't know if you watch television, but I gave it up - I found it a very negative influence in my life. It precluded my ability to think clearly. The shows are contrived to lull you into a sort of numb complacency and the documentaries and news shows were so carefully constructed to bring you around to some arbitrary point-of-view that it was nigh-on impossible to resist. It's a tragedy that such a useful tool was abused in this way, but with the manufacture of consent high in the minds of those who fund it, it was really inevitable.
Wouldn't it be great to give people their minds back? Allow people to exercise their personal responsibility instead of marching through this landscape of drones?
I don't need law - I have a mind. I don't recognise the law of this land as a sensible path to follow. Still haven't killed anyone or stolen anything. Gee, how do I do it?
Getting laws changed is no trivial task. You say that as if it's as easy as writing a letter.
Zimbabwe is not a valid example of a society built not to require the rule of law. Firstly, it's a dictatorship - the ultimate and most barbaric practice of law. Law exists there and you do not mess with it or you will die. Also, a lot of the former British Empire is messed up - everywhere they went they left war, dictatorship and trouble behind. Zimbabwe is no exception.
I get the feeling that you haven't exposed yourself to a lot of political thought alternative to the system you now live under. Your replies all smack of pamphlet rhetoric rather than having any semblance of reflection behind them. It's as if you've blindly accepted everything taught to you without an iota of analysis. How do you know these people were telling you the truth? I mean, if you just believe what's been repeated to you since birth then how can you be sure there's any truth to it at all? I find exposing myself to alternative philosophies and questioning everything es
Point taken. They were more the greed/mindshare type. What about the persecution of peoples going on today? Quite a bit of holy-book-thumping involved.
I know that most of the faithful are peaceful people, it's just that religion has the potential for firing people up for war and persecution more than just about anything else that comes to mind. All without proof, I might add. I already attributed a lot of the evil in the world to plain old greed - I do recognise that it's not all religion. I'm not sure if the positive influence or religion outweighs the evils of its negative. That's a lot of dead people back there...
All truth is relative - it's tainted by perception. That's why we must take great pains to make sure we try to get all the facts. As I said before, my truths aren't set in stone. They're subject to change based on new information and new ideas. The thing is, until then this is all I have to work with. Indeed, what I call evil you might call good and idealistic compromise is no mean feat to achieve but a recognition that absolute truth is elusive does not preclude the ability to think and does not negate the value of cognition.
I note you're omitting a lot of the points I'm making for some reason. I'd like to return to the idea of law if I might. I find a lot of it evil. Sure, there's stuff that most of us can agree with like assault, murder and (if you like to own things) damage to or theft of property. The rest of it smacks of either religiously inspired restriction of personal freedom or mindless beaurocracy that seems designed purely to make life difficult. If I might focus again on the idea of vices and religion...
You believe god created free will, right? You may also agree that it is his greatest achievement... I think the ability to think and choose independently is great myself. Does law deny free will? If you don't choose yourself through thought but are guided by strict adherence to law is your virtue assured? Is denying the freedom of will an affront to god?
This is part of the reason for my
I just chose the contrast because Science V Religion is an age old and rather tired argument. It's meant to be humourous more than anything else.
Very simple. So close to one's face that most don't see it.
To suffer isn't pleasant. It should be reduced. I can help by not inflict suffering on another - simple as that. It's basic empathy.
Is your problem is the fact that there's no eternal damnation for those who do bad things? There isn't even an earthly punishment for most of them. Most people who do bad things think they already have god on their side anyway... You don't hear of atheist geurillas attacking agnostic enclaves... </cheap shot>
Truth be told, I don't know. I just took the evidence I had and boiled it down to that conclusion. The fact that I don't know for certain doesn't bother me as I have a fairly clear idea my idea is correct with plenty of evidence to back it up. I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure. It's not that objectionable a philosophy, is it? To do no harm? My ideas aren't set in stone, either. They're always subject to change and they quite often do. A conclusion is only where you stop thinking
You could think of it like this... Humans (as well as other social animals) are born with natural altruistic tendencies. Whether you believe we evolved them or they were put there isn't relevant - they exist. The desire to help others is part of what we are (until something like common greed takes it from us). This tendency helps our species survive - obstacles to survival are easier dealt with in groups and we think better when we can talk our ideas out with another. Let's face it, if this wasn't a natural tendency then what is communication for?
So, at a fundamental level not harming another is beneficial to the whole species. It aids our survival and makes for a happy life.
Take a look at the other side of the coin. If you are greedy and, for want of a better term, fuck over people to get what you want then the repurcussions of that ripple outwards too. You know yourself that your average war is over one of two things... My god has bigger cojones than your god or that's mine, give it to me - both can be considered a land grab.
Right and wrong? They're just concepts invented by us to begin with. There's no cosmic justice keeping it all in check, it's just a mechanism we have for deciding if what we do is beneficial. I like to think of it like this: Right benefits all of us. Wrong benefits a single individual. Am I right? Who knows?
Don't apologise - you didn't do anything. I'm over it - I just worry about other people I know still under the influence who I know are going to guilt themselves into an early grave.
This is fair enough but the problem is emotive arguments dictate too much of what should be rational. What do you hear more often in political debate, "Let's think about this for a second" or "Think of the children*!"
Emotion is important in human relationships but rational thought is at least as important. Being able to think before we act is essential in every situation.
There's also too much religion in politics. It gets on my nerves when my representatives talk about god or special relationships with the church - this bullshit has as much to do with the maintenance of infrastructure as the colour of my eyes. Just take care of the damned plumbing and keep your faith to yourself, thanks!
I won't address your beliefs. You are perfectly entitled to hold them and I don't share them. You'll see that my issue isn't your faith but the fact that the religion behind it affects my life even though I don't subscribe to it.
I can't smoke a joint for the same reason I have to wear a seatbelt? Bull.
There are two reasons the law exists. The first reason is to preserve power. All governments have laws to protect themselves just like christianity has The First Commandment. This betrays a fear in the entity who passed this law - they're actually scared about the fact that we're a fickle bunch - we'll hang on to what's best available so they need "If you believe in something else Bad Things Will Happen". Doesn't matter if it's communism or Buddha, you're in trouble now, pal!
Now, this is also embedded in the education system. Alongside my religious education was a political one all about how the solutions the government came up with were in my best interests and beyond my understanding so best just get on with it and not make waves. When you're taught not to question, the law becomes the ultimate arbiter of morality rather than the individual. This leads to the second reason.
Under this system people are left incapable of making decisions beyond the choice of which fine, fine products to buy. Anything other than that confuses them so they turn to the law to decide what to do or not do. Watch out for it - many people think "illegal" is the same thing as "immoral" - if this was true then the entire world would be under one set of laws, no? This is reflected in the fact that everything bad that happens results in some new piece of legislation... People stopped seeing law as a guide a long time ago - now they think the law is supposed to protect them somehow. Hard cheese, bud... a lot of bad stuff happens that we have no control over!
Back when I had faith in humanity and thought there was a solution in anarchism I used to be asked
I am aware of the beliefs of christianity. I was raised Catholic and I still have things to resolve about that. Did you know that when I was a child they told me I'd go to a pit of eternal, burning fire for telling a fib (or later, using contraception)? Seems like a pretty messed up thing to tell a kid, but I don't worry about the pit any more.
It was the day I realised that this pit of eternal, burning fire was total bullshit to keep you fearfully following another line of total bullshit that I started feeling a lot better about myself. Realising that sex isn't sinful, but great fun. Realising that my body is only here for a short time and that my enforced religion would steer me away from all experimentation with it - I'd die without having experienced anything other than a phony "joy" in the "knowledge" that some dead guy somehow loves me (and, of course, wants me to burn in an eternal pit of fire if I piss him off).
You see, here's the thing... This religion they'd gifted me with was nothing more than a mechanism to keep me well behaved. A strong work ethic, a belief in marriage, spewing out more christian soldiers - it didn't appeal to me, but it was the path they'd chosen for me - fuck that! I have a life, I'm not going to squander it on this righteous drudgery.
What have you got to back up the "fact" that Jesus died for your sins other than the fact that it was pushed into your head from birth backed up by a healthy dose of fear to keep it there? Or perhaps you could answer this... If you had never been exposed to religion - no supreme beings, sin, churches etc - until adulthood would you find it totally rational? Would you take to it with aplomb or would you have a few questions for the guy with the book?
Get 'em young...
I was about to submit this and a thought occurred... Why do christians campaign for vice laws? Surely if you don't have the free will to choose your sin then your virtue is a little hollow. Are they afraid of temptation so they need another layer of fear to keep them away from the odd card game or porn mag?
"Good science"? Don't make me choke. The beliefs of the scientist don't matter an iota as long as those beliefs don't affect his observations. Or do you mean research is venturing into fields which you find disturbing? You see, that doesn't really make the science "good" or "bad" - that generally refers to the methodology.
As time goes on and our understanding improves we will want to delve deeper into what makes us, and everything around us, tick - without resorting to "God did it!" (because that would be incredibly bad science). As our field of understanding improves people will find the nature of the research more visceral and disturbing... which seems to be a natural reaction for christians...
Let's take the classic example of Leonardo Da Vinci. If the church found out that he was examining dead bodies to understand the operation of them he would have been excommunicated - and that was no fun back then. The work was a little gruesome, but he described the nature of death and the circulatory & nervous systems and much more. The thing is, old Leo was a bit of a jack of all trades - excelled at everything. He couldn't leave our place in the universe alo
No, the Inquirer is the National Enquirer of the IT Industry...
If you want to waste some time try signing this petition.
Now, and forever
Firefox isn't GPL licensed... it's released under the MPL.
Or am I missing something?
Slackware? Orwellian references?
:)
Marry me!
Hmmm... It looks to me like a sex toy, but that probably says more about me than the logo in fairness.
Now I can't look at the beastie without thinking "Double-donger on a balloon"
Brontosaurus? There's no such thing. Although since you are referring to a cartoon brontosaurus-type thing from before the time they knew it didn't exist you'll probably be forgiven any way and I'll be forever tainted as some sort of pedantic troll...
I can't believe it, you've ruined my life!
Yeah, I think the poster neglected to actually read your Subject line and assumed you were talking about WMP. How they got modded insightful for this I do not know (Ah... refreshed the page... Modded troll for poor comprehension skills :) ).
As for amaroK, I must admit it's nice but I know where my albums are and I got bored with statistics about 8 seconds before I deleted my audioscrobbler account. I use Beep if I'm running X.
Well, that's not exactly overboard
My parents play the Irish Lotto here twice a week. I make sure to keep the number of times I point out the fact that if they had been saving that money they'd have about 10,000 quid now to a minimum
It doesn't go into the same kitty as tax revenue here AFAIK. It's donated to charities and such so it's not all bad, I guess. Still, there are people around here who spend their pensions on scratch cards - I can't get behind that. The adverts are terrible, as well - at least they were back when I watched TV. No real indication that you may not win. Sure, people are supposed to know that but my confidence in people knowing things they should is fairly low.
As long as you keep laughing. If you start planning your day around it it's time to check into Belleview.
You see all the seasons before you're 1 year old...
However, it has been observed that children born later in the year are more prone to depression. Not sure how accurate that is but I was born in December and can't get out of bed most mornings.
As for being able to derive personality traits from your star sign... I bet if I was flattering enough you'd agree with anything. "Pisces? Oh, you're a strong individual with a free spirit" and so on...
Nah, that's the Inquirer
Hmmm... Seems to be an amusing gibe at the expense of that whole fossils theory.
Hmmm... Don't understand how this reaction could be prompted by such a light-hearte... Oh, wait. He said secularist. Now I get it - everybody who doesn't have "True Faith" is a woolly-minded, liberal pot-smoker bent on the destruction of all that is good and holy in the world. Good, holy things like mass murder, denial of free-will and subjugation of women. Gimme that old-time religium! </rhetoric>
Don't whine at us because your logic deficiency precludes having the ability to tell the difference between an imaginary friend and a real friend. Trust me, if you didn't have that faith shit pushed into your head with the twin fangs of sin and guilt back when your head was still soft you would be a much happier person today.
I'm not open-minded - I don't have the sort of time required to listen to everybody's point of view. I shave down the time required to hear what something's all about by cutting out people whose reasoning skills I don't respect. If you have an imaginary friend I'm not going to take you too seriously on other matters - same if you read horoscopes or partake in the lottery... I'm no Spock but I do know how to spot someone with a severe logic deficiency.