While I'd agree that most people identifying themselves as Christians are involved in the business of scamming, or being scammed, I don't think it's fair to say say that "Christianity is nothing but a way of scamming people for money." Jesus started the Christian movement, and martin Luther started the protestant branch of Christianity. They both did it specifically because they had a problem with that kind of exploitation. So it's not fair to say that's what it's about. But yes, you do see it being exploited for that purpose a lot. This is not a problem unique to Christianity, all charitable organizations and spiritual movements suffer from this kind of exploitation. The thing that's appalling is the blatant hypocrisy of church leaders in preaching a message that is so diametrically opposed to their actions (they even preach against hypocrisy for Christ's sake!). It's no wonder you see so much disillusionment among people who wish to be Christians.
That's one way of looking at things. But it seems like I love an awful lot of things if that is the case. Maybe I'm just really lucky that I have so many options for what to do with my life and I love them all. Maybe it's because I don't think that I have to love the things I love and I don't think I have to hate the things I hate. I think it's the latter, because it seems obvious from my point of view.
I really doubt they *all* have some kind of socially-based sexual-preference-building apparatus that happens to make a small proportion of almost every mammal species gay.
Why would you doubt that? It's not present in every mammal species, and even if it were it could have a social cause rather than a physiological one (as they haven't proven a physiological link). Also, this is a list of animals displaying homosexual behavior, and does not preclude them from engaging in heterosexual sex (in humans we say someone is homosexual if they are exclusively homosexual).
Then in your eyes, men who are aroused by other men, but wish to be straight should resign themselves to a life of quiet desperation. The can't have what they feel they need, no matter what. They have only two choices, to pretend to be straight or pretend to be ok with being gay. That's not unlike the lives that most people live. I'm trying to tell you it doesn't have to be that way.
That's not how it works. Everyone sees men and women who they think are attractive. Just because you find someone attractive doesn't mean you have to have sex with them. And someone who seems ugly at first may seem more attractive as you get to know them better. The opposite is also true.
I love art, I also love building houses. Actually, I've never done work I didn't love. I've had jobs I didn't love, but that was because of the people I was working with not the work I was doing. I did not "discover" engineering. My father was an engineer and I studied engineering because I wanted to be like him. If I had it to do over again knowing what I know now, I may not have chosen it, and in the future, I may do something different. I'm not stuck with it. I think people get stuck in their ways for a lack of open-mindendess and an overabundance of investment in their present reality. I don't believe this is necessary for people, and I know it is not necessary for me.
I didn't use the word natural, you did. However, I would like to submit this definition of the word to you, which is appropriate for you to understand the argument I am trying to make
define:natural
unthinking; prompted by (or as if by) instinct; "a cat's natural aversion to water"; "offering to help was as instinctive as breathing"
I know that people can behave this way, but I don't think they have to. The necessity is thoughtfulness. I think it is possible to work through your emotions rather than blindly accepting them (as the poster I am responding to would) or rejecting them (as the writers of this app would). Just because you live in the natural world does not mean you have to blindly follow your feelings and desires. I'm saying that the thoughtful man can understand their emotions and work with them rather than being ruled by them.
What you see in these studies is that people are able to find correlations in smaller samples, but those correlations diminish or disappear in larger more directed studies.
The most compelling finding is that that if one twin is gay it is positively associated with the other being gay as well. However, this is also the most damming because it is such a small association while twins are completely identical genetically. All the arguments that that sexuality is physically determined (either by genetics or by the hormone environment in the womb) rely on the existence of unknown or unproven physical factors.
Nevertheless, even if these hypotheses are one day proven true, the actual effects, statistically speaking, are known to be small. That leaves a huge hole in the science of determinism for people who wish to be masters of their own sexual fate to slip through.
There's research showing that boys with older brothers have a 10% higher chance of being gay for each older brother. The leading theory is that the hormones in the mother's womb are changed permanently due to the presence of the fetal boys.
This is not a theory because it is not backed by evidence. Scientifically speaking, this is a hypothesis that researchers are investigating. While it is true that younger sons are more likely to be gay, spastically speaking, there is no evidence today that this has a physical cause.
But, this talk of statistics is beside the point I am trying to make. My complaint is that this kind of thinking ignores the reality (as I see it) that people self-determine their identity. That fact that this evidence is stated probabilistically lends credence to the idea that there is not a physical explanation for such preferences.
You may say it is only my opinion, but I believe it because of my personal experiences. Ultimately, though, my argument is a philosophical one. If scientific research has left wide open the possibility that you have a choice in the matter, why choose to believe that you don't? If I am to believe that I have no choice in who I am, or who I will become, what point is there in living? Why believe you are a slave to your desires, and that you have no say in them if the science doesn't require it?
By why would you want somebody to try being somebody who they are not, instead of accepting who they are?
This statement assumes the hypotheses that being gay is not a choice. Saying that you can't be happy being straight is that same as saying that you need to be gay as far as I'm concerned. So I'd agree that if you feel strongly that you need to be gay, trying to use your willpower to resist that is counterproductive. That's why I say this app is misguided. But banning the app will not solve the problem, because people need to be free to explore their options and they need to learn for themselves that this kind of thing doesn't work.
I do not mean to say that it's impossible for someone to feel that they have not other choice but to be gay. What I am saying is that's not the reality of the situation, and that people don't need to feel that way. People are not so different that it's possible or one man to love a woman and impossible for another. But the prejudices and preferences we accumulate over time influence the kind of relationships we are comfortable building over time. Those preferences are not hard-wired, and in reality changing them only requires being open-minded to the possibility that your next relationship with someone of that sex does not have to be the same as the last.
Again, it makes no difference to me whether someone has sex with men or with women. But I'd rather see people having sex because they want to. Not because they feel compelled to by their emotions or because of social pressure, or because some scientist says they need to be gay or straight. In reality, the key to realizing your true identity (that is the person you are today, and the person you want to become in the future) is exploring your feelings today, and being open to the idea that things may be different tomorrow.
I don't think that's entirely fair. Martin Luther, for example, risked his life to put a stop to this kind of exploitation. Also, Jesus was killed for opposing this kind of thing. So, the roots of Christianity are firmly opposed to this kind of exploitation, even if the church "leaders" are for it.
That's not how personal preferences are formed. You don't have a genetic program that determines who you will have sex with. If there were a gay gene, they'd have found it by now. Sex is a creative process, and the people taking part in it decide how it will happen. Saying you don't choose to be gay is like saying you don't choose to be an engineer. I happen to be an engineer, but I don't believe that I had to be one, or that I could not put down my computer and pick a paintbrush or a hammer tomorrow if I wanted to.
Human development is a process of growth and exploration. It's not a deterministic process of like following a flow chart to your destination. People self-select who they are and who they will become. It is an amazing process that is shrouded in mystery. Telling someone that they are who they are, and they can't choose is as bad as telling them that it's wrong to be who they are because the did have a choice. Either is dis-empowering and unloving. Ultimately, you are responsible for who you are and who you will become. Where these Christian nut-jobs get screwed up they think it's their job to take that responsibility from the ones who rightly have it.
This app is misguided, but it's completely voluntary. If it's another step in people learning about who they are and taking the next step, I'm all for it, no matter how misguided it is.
The problem is that keeping it hidden is necessary to perpetuate it. If this kind of thing were done openly people would be like "woah, wait a minute, what are we signing up for?" Today we are baffled that the "system" doesn't work. We wonder why it doesn't work, or what improvements can be made to it. We think maybe if we elect different leaders they will do a better job. Maybe if our party had more power they'd fix things. Maybe if more people voted the quality of the votes would be better and the quality of the candidates would be better.
Rules like this exist for the people that break them. It's illegal to accept bribes so that some people can go on doing it and others won't realize it's happening. You swear an oath so that you can lie and people won't think you're lying. We have a system where it's illegal to pay for political influence so that people won't realize we have a system where political influence it bought and sold.
In reality, the system works exactly as intended, but people don't realize what is intended by it. I think it would be better if they did.
I'm pretty sure it's the police's job to protect everybody. If it's not, then why have them? Why not just identify who isn't to be protected and use the military to round them up into concentration camps?
I am not talking about the technicalities of law. What I mean is that if a cop lies to you, and you bring that up in court, they will laugh at you. But if you lie to a cop, and he brings that up in court, they will take it very seriously as evidence of your guilt. If doing something can have serious negative repercussions for you down the road, you aren't free to do it. And if a person in authority is free to do something, but you are not, that is a worrying situation.
Anyway in the US you have the 5th amendment. In most other societies based on common law, you have the right to silence under other names. It's your only right, but it's pretty powerful. All the police can expect from you is your name and address. Period.
But the police can legally lie to you and manipulate you into incriminating yourself. If a person believes they need to incriminate themselves to gain a lighter sentence or put aside police suspicion, they will do it. It does not matter if the force of law is behind such a claim on the part of police, as long as people believe it is.
There is always a balance between ensuring citizens have due process, and also due justice.
Call me crazy, but I'd take due process over due justice any day. I'm not comfortable with there being any balance between the two at all. I'd imagine I'd feel that way all the more strongly if I ever wound up in court. Injustice is always wrong, and it's not something I ever want to see our government involved in. Even if it's in the name of "justice".
I never got how this was supposed to work. It's held against you if you lie to a cop, but they can lie to you with impunity. It seems like a recipe for abuse. The cops are free to trick people into making self-incriminating remarks, even though people supposedly have the right not to self-incriminate. There's really no difference between being manipulated into making a confession (they tricked you), and being cohered into it (they threatened you). This is a loophole in the 5th amendment that has essentially rendered it ineffective.
Science fiction is not about solid science. Science fiction is when an author asks "what if we could do this?" and then uses a hypothetical technology to make that possible. By definition no technology that would make a work science fiction is possible with today's understanding of the world. If it were, we'd just call it "fiction" because that's all it would be.
Think of it this way, the science in "science fiction" is what is fictional. These works require the audience to suspend their disbelief of what is or is not possible in order to digest the greater point the author is trying to make, or in order to be entertained by the work if that is the author's intent. If you are unable or unwilling to suspend your disbelief, that is your loss. But you need to understand that there is no real difference between a hypothetical technology you can accept and one you can't, because neither is really possible. Neither is based on "solid science". It's just your opinion that one may be possible and the other may not be.
In making the distinction between what you think may be possible and what you think may not be possible, you are missing the point of the genera.
People won't always agree on everything. You didn't complain about Predator being on the list, and it's basically a mindless action flick. A few omissions or improper inclusions do not ruin the whole list. When you quote it just go like this:
Destination Moon (1950). This movie was made with the involvement of the space community of the day and Robert Heinlein who wrote the story it was based on.
. . . The Abyss (1989) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Credit Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrik 2010 (1984) Contact (1997). Credit Carl Sagan Deep Impact (1998) Gattaca (1998)
. . . Minority Report (2002) Primer (2004) [Moon]
My hope for the end of anonymity is that people will someday realize that everyone makes mistakes. Everyone does things that we may find objectionable. Pretending not to is no way to bring people together. My hope is that one day we will learn to accept others for who they truly are.
The goal of the website is to connect people. Wouldn't maintaining anonymity preclude that? It seems like anonymity is actually the antithesis of Facebook, in which case I'd say Christopher Poole is the one who doesn't get it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like they've borrowed their definition of winning from Charlie Sheen.
While I'd agree that most people identifying themselves as Christians are involved in the business of scamming, or being scammed, I don't think it's fair to say say that "Christianity is nothing but a way of scamming people for money." Jesus started the Christian movement, and martin Luther started the protestant branch of Christianity. They both did it specifically because they had a problem with that kind of exploitation. So it's not fair to say that's what it's about. But yes, you do see it being exploited for that purpose a lot. This is not a problem unique to Christianity, all charitable organizations and spiritual movements suffer from this kind of exploitation. The thing that's appalling is the blatant hypocrisy of church leaders in preaching a message that is so diametrically opposed to their actions (they even preach against hypocrisy for Christ's sake!). It's no wonder you see so much disillusionment among people who wish to be Christians.
That's one way of looking at things. But it seems like I love an awful lot of things if that is the case. Maybe I'm just really lucky that I have so many options for what to do with my life and I love them all. Maybe it's because I don't think that I have to love the things I love and I don't think I have to hate the things I hate. I think it's the latter, because it seems obvious from my point of view.
Why would you doubt that? It's not present in every mammal species, and even if it were it could have a social cause rather than a physiological one (as they haven't proven a physiological link). Also, this is a list of animals displaying homosexual behavior, and does not preclude them from engaging in heterosexual sex (in humans we say someone is homosexual if they are exclusively homosexual).
Then in your eyes, men who are aroused by other men, but wish to be straight should resign themselves to a life of quiet desperation. The can't have what they feel they need, no matter what. They have only two choices, to pretend to be straight or pretend to be ok with being gay. That's not unlike the lives that most people live. I'm trying to tell you it doesn't have to be that way.
That's not how it works. Everyone sees men and women who they think are attractive. Just because you find someone attractive doesn't mean you have to have sex with them. And someone who seems ugly at first may seem more attractive as you get to know them better. The opposite is also true.
I love art, I also love building houses. Actually, I've never done work I didn't love. I've had jobs I didn't love, but that was because of the people I was working with not the work I was doing. I did not "discover" engineering. My father was an engineer and I studied engineering because I wanted to be like him. If I had it to do over again knowing what I know now, I may not have chosen it, and in the future, I may do something different. I'm not stuck with it. I think people get stuck in their ways for a lack of open-mindendess and an overabundance of investment in their present reality. I don't believe this is necessary for people, and I know it is not necessary for me.
You have not understood me correctly.
I didn't use the word natural, you did. However, I would like to submit this definition of the word to you, which is appropriate for you to understand the argument I am trying to make
I know that people can behave this way, but I don't think they have to. The necessity is thoughtfulness. I think it is possible to work through your emotions rather than blindly accepting them (as the poster I am responding to would) or rejecting them (as the writers of this app would). Just because you live in the natural world does not mean you have to blindly follow your feelings and desires. I'm saying that the thoughtful man can understand their emotions and work with them rather than being ruled by them.
What I'm saying is that it didn't. That's what I said in my second paragraph.
What you see in these studies is that people are able to find correlations in smaller samples, but those correlations diminish or disappear in larger more directed studies.
The most compelling finding is that that if one twin is gay it is positively associated with the other being gay as well. However, this is also the most damming because it is such a small association while twins are completely identical genetically. All the arguments that that sexuality is physically determined (either by genetics or by the hormone environment in the womb) rely on the existence of unknown or unproven physical factors.
Nevertheless, even if these hypotheses are one day proven true, the actual effects, statistically speaking, are known to be small. That leaves a huge hole in the science of determinism for people who wish to be masters of their own sexual fate to slip through.
I've read a lot about it. . .
This is not a theory because it is not backed by evidence. Scientifically speaking, this is a hypothesis that researchers are investigating. While it is true that younger sons are more likely to be gay, spastically speaking, there is no evidence today that this has a physical cause.
But, this talk of statistics is beside the point I am trying to make. My complaint is that this kind of thinking ignores the reality (as I see it) that people self-determine their identity. That fact that this evidence is stated probabilistically lends credence to the idea that there is not a physical explanation for such preferences.
You may say it is only my opinion, but I believe it because of my personal experiences. Ultimately, though, my argument is a philosophical one. If scientific research has left wide open the possibility that you have a choice in the matter, why choose to believe that you don't? If I am to believe that I have no choice in who I am, or who I will become, what point is there in living? Why believe you are a slave to your desires, and that you have no say in them if the science doesn't require it?
This statement assumes the hypotheses that being gay is not a choice. Saying that you can't be happy being straight is that same as saying that you need to be gay as far as I'm concerned. So I'd agree that if you feel strongly that you need to be gay, trying to use your willpower to resist that is counterproductive. That's why I say this app is misguided. But banning the app will not solve the problem, because people need to be free to explore their options and they need to learn for themselves that this kind of thing doesn't work.
I do not mean to say that it's impossible for someone to feel that they have not other choice but to be gay. What I am saying is that's not the reality of the situation, and that people don't need to feel that way. People are not so different that it's possible or one man to love a woman and impossible for another. But the prejudices and preferences we accumulate over time influence the kind of relationships we are comfortable building over time. Those preferences are not hard-wired, and in reality changing them only requires being open-minded to the possibility that your next relationship with someone of that sex does not have to be the same as the last.
Again, it makes no difference to me whether someone has sex with men or with women. But I'd rather see people having sex because they want to. Not because they feel compelled to by their emotions or because of social pressure, or because some scientist says they need to be gay or straight. In reality, the key to realizing your true identity (that is the person you are today, and the person you want to become in the future) is exploring your feelings today, and being open to the idea that things may be different tomorrow.
I don't think that's entirely fair. Martin Luther, for example, risked his life to put a stop to this kind of exploitation. Also, Jesus was killed for opposing this kind of thing. So, the roots of Christianity are firmly opposed to this kind of exploitation, even if the church "leaders" are for it.
That's not how personal preferences are formed. You don't have a genetic program that determines who you will have sex with. If there were a gay gene, they'd have found it by now. Sex is a creative process, and the people taking part in it decide how it will happen. Saying you don't choose to be gay is like saying you don't choose to be an engineer. I happen to be an engineer, but I don't believe that I had to be one, or that I could not put down my computer and pick a paintbrush or a hammer tomorrow if I wanted to.
Human development is a process of growth and exploration. It's not a deterministic process of like following a flow chart to your destination. People self-select who they are and who they will become. It is an amazing process that is shrouded in mystery. Telling someone that they are who they are, and they can't choose is as bad as telling them that it's wrong to be who they are because the did have a choice. Either is dis-empowering and unloving. Ultimately, you are responsible for who you are and who you will become. Where these Christian nut-jobs get screwed up they think it's their job to take that responsibility from the ones who rightly have it.
This app is misguided, but it's completely voluntary. If it's another step in people learning about who they are and taking the next step, I'm all for it, no matter how misguided it is.
The problem is that keeping it hidden is necessary to perpetuate it. If this kind of thing were done openly people would be like "woah, wait a minute, what are we signing up for?" Today we are baffled that the "system" doesn't work. We wonder why it doesn't work, or what improvements can be made to it. We think maybe if we elect different leaders they will do a better job. Maybe if our party had more power they'd fix things. Maybe if more people voted the quality of the votes would be better and the quality of the candidates would be better.
Rules like this exist for the people that break them. It's illegal to accept bribes so that some people can go on doing it and others won't realize it's happening. You swear an oath so that you can lie and people won't think you're lying. We have a system where it's illegal to pay for political influence so that people won't realize we have a system where political influence it bought and sold.
In reality, the system works exactly as intended, but people don't realize what is intended by it. I think it would be better if they did.
I'm pretty sure it's the police's job to protect everybody. If it's not, then why have them? Why not just identify who isn't to be protected and use the military to round them up into concentration camps?
I am not talking about the technicalities of law. What I mean is that if a cop lies to you, and you bring that up in court, they will laugh at you. But if you lie to a cop, and he brings that up in court, they will take it very seriously as evidence of your guilt. If doing something can have serious negative repercussions for you down the road, you aren't free to do it. And if a person in authority is free to do something, but you are not, that is a worrying situation.
But the police can legally lie to you and manipulate you into incriminating yourself. If a person believes they need to incriminate themselves to gain a lighter sentence or put aside police suspicion, they will do it. It does not matter if the force of law is behind such a claim on the part of police, as long as people believe it is.
You mean don't talk to people who present themselves as police officers?
Call me crazy, but I'd take due process over due justice any day. I'm not comfortable with there being any balance between the two at all. I'd imagine I'd feel that way all the more strongly if I ever wound up in court. Injustice is always wrong, and it's not something I ever want to see our government involved in. Even if it's in the name of "justice".
I never got how this was supposed to work. It's held against you if you lie to a cop, but they can lie to you with impunity. It seems like a recipe for abuse. The cops are free to trick people into making self-incriminating remarks, even though people supposedly have the right not to self-incriminate. There's really no difference between being manipulated into making a confession (they tricked you), and being cohered into it (they threatened you). This is a loophole in the 5th amendment that has essentially rendered it ineffective.
Science fiction is not about solid science. Science fiction is when an author asks "what if we could do this?" and then uses a hypothetical technology to make that possible. By definition no technology that would make a work science fiction is possible with today's understanding of the world. If it were, we'd just call it "fiction" because that's all it would be.
Think of it this way, the science in "science fiction" is what is fictional. These works require the audience to suspend their disbelief of what is or is not possible in order to digest the greater point the author is trying to make, or in order to be entertained by the work if that is the author's intent. If you are unable or unwilling to suspend your disbelief, that is your loss. But you need to understand that there is no real difference between a hypothetical technology you can accept and one you can't, because neither is really possible. Neither is based on "solid science". It's just your opinion that one may be possible and the other may not be.
In making the distinction between what you think may be possible and what you think may not be possible, you are missing the point of the genera.
People won't always agree on everything. You didn't complain about Predator being on the list, and it's basically a mindless action flick. A few omissions or improper inclusions do not ruin the whole list. When you quote it just go like this:
My hope for the end of anonymity is that people will someday realize that everyone makes mistakes. Everyone does things that we may find objectionable. Pretending not to is no way to bring people together. My hope is that one day we will learn to accept others for who they truly are.
What? Why are you laughing?
The goal of the website is to connect people. Wouldn't maintaining anonymity preclude that? It seems like anonymity is actually the antithesis of Facebook, in which case I'd say Christopher Poole is the one who doesn't get it.