I realised that it took a lot more faith to picture myself as a deterministic cog in a Universe consisting only of mathematically perfect laws, than as a part of a greater plan. The idea of being a mere biological machine ceased to appeal to me when it became a matter of denying reality as I perceived it.
What about you? Have you really thought about this?
Not in those terms, because it doesn't "deny reality as [I] see it."
As I see reality, I'm an animal (a biological machine) with some intelligence. More than some animals, less than others. I am fairly certain this is the case for all animals. This makes sense to me, and (so far) I have encountered nothing to make me think otherwise... even a little bit.
Perhaps there is extraordinary evidence for the existence of God. Perhaps it's you.
I don't think so. If humans (it is silly to consider it to be me, but I will consider it to be people in general) are supposed to be the evidence for design, then I can only conclude that the designer in question was an incompetent fool. From babies born without critical (or simply useful) parts of their anatomy, to the incredibly dangerous and flaw-riddled female role in the reproductive system (which, I should point out, has only just recently begun to be less so, and only by the efforts of other humans, not any god or gods), I see the human condition and human configuration as one long testament to random development and/or extremely poor design. Which definitely leaves out the concept of a god or gods as has commonly been brought forth by the religions I have known and read about.
"We are descended from chemical goo" is an extraordinary claim.
Yes, it is. It represents a theory being applied to a question for which we do not know the answer. I don't have a problem with not knowing the answer.
Interestingly, there are a number of attempts being made to see if this is a reasonable possibility; even if they find that (for instance) they can create life in a test tube, this does not make it certain that we arose that way. The only way to be absolutely certain is to find some way to observe the event, however far in the past that might be, and I don't think that's too likely, given what we know of how the universe works.
I think this demonstrates a basic failing of many people; they assume that we must have the answers to questions right now. The fact is, some questions may never be answered, or certainly not answered for a long, long time.
To put a fine point on it, if science doesn't provide an answer (yet or ever), there is no particular reason to assume that anything else, such as the bible, provides the answer, either. The more so when alternate sources of ideas, again such as the bible, are riddled with known errors.
Just because the miracles seem far fetched doesn't disprove the entire contents.
I didn't say it did — I said it requires extraordinary evidence, which has not been forthcoming. As it stands, there is no proof, and that places the bible and the stories it tells in a special category with regard to truth: Unknown.
The "a-" in atheism refers to the diety, not the belief.
No, in fact it does not. In English, the word is a-theist; the root of this is considered to be a-theos, which meant something similar, but not the same, in Greek — that may be where your error is coming from. You can resolve your confusion by simple reference to a decent dictionary, or doing a little research to determine what those who are atheist say they stand for in general, and how the language is used by them to define those positions (strong [sometimes called naive] atheism adds conviction, weak atheism is the base position of being without belief.)
Please consider: It is amazingly pointless to look at a group, taking the position they stand for "A", when they have clearly stated they stand for "B", and then proceed to argue from the basis of "A."
As for the rest, since your premise was wholly flawed, I decline to go there.
how are you any different when you are also saying that you are right and they are wrong without a second though?
Here's the short version:
Most atheists have gone on to 2nd thought, and further. Seriously.
Now, if I say to you, "Yesterday, I had a ham on rye, and I got it from the deli", how likely are you to believe it? Let's look at it. First, ham on rye is a reasonable foodstuff. Second, delis sell this combo, and it's in the common experience of most people to have that confirmed as objective fact. Now, you don't know if I had it in fact, but inasmuch as it's a reasonable claim, you might be inclined to accept it unless it is shown that I have a habit of lying about my lunch, or it turns out that there is no deli later. ok?
But, if I say to you, "Yesterday, I had manna from heaven, which was given me by an angel", now how seriously are you going to take me? What is manna? How often has it been noted coming from heaven? How many people have been observed to have been fed by an angel? When was the last time anyone photographed or measured an angel? Even if you skip all of that, still, are you going to take me at my word?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you're going to agree that my story is unlikely. Most people would, and for good reason. Here it is: I'm making an extraordinary claim, one that is outside the realm of common (or even known) human experience, and so your instinct is going to be to want some pretty good evidence for my claim before you get all jolly and decide I'm telling you the truth.
The refined phrase is: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Finally, the problem here is that the bible(s) are full of extraordinary claims. People rising from the dead. People being turned into pillars of salt. The entire world being flooded, which would require more water than there is on the planet. Everyone having common ancestors in the persons of Adam and Eve. Geological formation of planets (this one, specifically) in non-geological time frames as well as creation of complex life in very, very short time frames. So, just as you probably found it in your heart to doubt my story of manna from heaven at the hands of an angel, atheists find good reason to doubt the stories told in the bible. These stories make extraordinary claims. Not only is there no extraordinary evidence, there appears to be no evidence at all for those stories, and quite a bit (like fossils, current amount of water on the planet, observed evolution and speciation time frames, various methods of dating geological formations, DNA comparisons between one human being and the next) which actively argue for disproof of some of the specific points made in those stories.
Nah. When you go back to the fundamentals of atheism, all you have is no belief in a god or gods.
a = "without"
theism = "belief in a god or gods"
a-theism = "without belief in a god or gods"
As a fundamentalist atheist myself, I'm perfectly prepared to say there might be one. In fact, might be two or three. Or 42. Or thousands of them.
But since none have shown their heads, or their works, around my neck of the woods there is no point in getting all tangled up in some belief without a reasonable basis in objective fact to reason from. So I keep the idea in the same drawer with other ideas that require extraordinary evidence, such as pink unicorns, UFOs and telepathy. Sure would be interesting to see. When and if that happens, I'll re-evaluate the situation.
The problem with inconsistency is that programs do things you don't expect. If you spend 95% of your time working one way, but have to work a different way for the other 5%, it becomes pretty inconvenient.
I see your point, though this doesn't affect me the way it does you.
That is indeed annoying. Trying that out in other apps, however, clicking a button in a background application activates the button, so the problem would seem to lie with an inconsistency with the GIMP, rather than bad OS X GUI design. One more mark against inconsistency;^)
No, it's an OSX thing. I just opened finder, clicked into a directory so the window was well and truly focused and so on, then clicked a link in Safari which was visible below the finder window. Safari came to the top and the window became active, but the link was not followed. These are both about as native OSX app as you can get. This happens all over the place. If you watch for it, I think you'll find it soon enough. Anyway, this isn't so much a poster child for consistancy as it is for someone in the UI department needing a bit of a beating.:)
Only true if only window is visible. If multiple windows are visible, as would be required in the GIMP, then they're all using up screen space.
No. Because the window that has the focus is on top, so it can never be obscured by any other window, GIMP's or otherwise. That's why window-based menus can never get in each other's way.
But ti takes longer to get them because they're smaller targets. If I want to get to the top of the screen, I can be there in an instant from anymore. So I definitely disagree, though in an amicable fashion, as befits the tone of this debate:)
Huh. Well, I'll buy your argument if you'll tell me how you get to the top of the screen in an instant. I can't, as far as I know -- it's further to roll the mouse to the top than it is to the top of a window, barring the single exception where the window is at the top anyway (in which case it takes just as long.) For me, I have no trouble hitting a UI element, and there's no particular speed difference. I've been mousing just about since there were mice and GUIs, though, and that could be a factor. I paint and draw with a mouse, too, though to be fair, I usually have a considerably better interface to work with than is available on the Mac for image processing and effects work. Not only faster, but more efficient and more flexible, because it naturally uses more of what a mouse can do. I am very, very precise with a mouse, so in-window menus are just no problem at all. So -- how do you get right to the top of the display with less moves than it takes to get to the top of a window that is, for instance, showing its title bar at the bottom third of the display?
I'm not sure how fair a comparison it is, given that the features in Quicktime are fairly rich, if you do pay for them. It would be like criticising shareware for not being feature-full if you didn't register it.
Well, I really wasn't trying to go there -- I was trying to say that given two programs that addressed any particular area, I would go for the one that gave me the most features, tools, capabilities, not the one that was UI compliant, that's all. Quicktime was probably a poor example, especially since I wasn't specific about what other software I had in mind. Again, my apologies.
But it's completely inconsistent with standard Mac GUI conventions.
And my exact point is that this affects its value not at all. The only thing that will affect its value here is if the user, that is, me, or you, decides to take an attitude that we're unwilling to use it because it is inconsistant. Me, I want to work on images, not worry about where the menu bar is, or isn't. That's simply a practical outlook. Consistancy is good — it means a (very little) less work for me to learn an application. But it is no barrier to use, to productivity, to quality.
It'd be pretty annoyed if clicking on a window didn't activate it. If it's a toolbar that shouldn't be activated, then it should be a toolbar, not a window.
You missed my point entirely. Say you're using Finder. So a Finder window is active. GIMP's been doing something and you were noodling around looking at other image filenames, say. GIMP pops up a dialog that says something like "Compress or save uncompressed?" with a "compress" button and a "don't compress" button. You point at the "compress" button, and you click on it. nothing happens. Why? because instead of clicking the button, OSX has activated the window. It should, indeed, activate the window but it should also have clicked that button. Now you have to click again, on the same button, to get the result you should have already had.
I prefer one easy to find menu bar to multiple menu bars in multiple windows, wasting a lot more space and taking more effort to reach.
Well, admitting up front that this is subject to various debates, let me point out the following issues:
The menu at the top uses considerable vertical space, all the time, which is unusable for all applications. You can't get a window to cover the menu bar. At least, I can't in 10.3.9.
Windows may, or may not, require a menu. For some (dialogs, for instance) a YES or NO or even simply OK is all the UI they need. This can be true of much more complex applications as well; if the developer is allowed to make that choice, of course.
If a menu is embeddded in a window, say, application A, and there is no menu at the top of the screen, then application A may be dragged to the top of the screen, thus providing menu-on-top functionality if you like it.
When menus are in the application window, and you are working in the application, you have less distance to go for any window that is smaller than the display and is not already located at the top.
When only one menu can be in context, as is the case with OSX, it is possible (and I have had this happen many times) that you will accidentally click the desktop or another window on the way to the menu, and thereby lose the menu you wanted, and then have to go back and re-select the app that matches your menu (this happened a lot until I chucked the horrible one-button Apple mouse... darned thing was so heavy that when I moved it, then re-psoitioned it, it would self-click (mass of button descending would click the button) and I would lose the menu immediately. Incredibly aggravating. I tossed that mouse in the trash.) But the problem is in the menu system, the mouse just aggravated it.
You refer to multiple menus "wasting a lot more space and taking more effort to reach." I would point out that when the menu is attached to a window, the window may descend beneath other windows in the Z-order so that regardless of how much space is dedicated to anything in that window, it is irrelevant to the application on top, because it gets to use the entire display: in-window menus are never in the way by their very nature. At the most, they obscure just about as much as an always-there top menu a'la OSX, with the added convenience that they stick with the application window as it is repositioned. That addresses
No, I think you *are* talking about pretty. The "conventions of the OSX interface" aren't nearly as important to me as they are to you. And a media player that is decently skinnable (mplayer comes to mind) can hopefully have any UI you want it to, and the first one it should have is the system standard one, but that in no way should preclude it also having any weird-assed interface that pleases the user.
The fact is, there is more than one way to be usable. I have no, and I mean zero, problem, using the GIMP under OSX because the interface is 100% functional. Running under X. In fact, most of the problems the GIMP has on the Mac are a consequence of OSX, for example, clicking on a window doesn't do what it should based on the UI element clicked upon, instead, it'll activate the window, which is just plain bad UI design, like the constant waste of space at the top of the display for the menu. Just because something is standard, doesn't mean it's good, and that's a fact.
Look at quicktime. It's standard, but it's crippled. Can't save movies (unless you pay extra) can't deal withy mpeg (unless you buy the add-on), yet it's a nice, standard Mac application. Comes to this, other software, even with a non-std interface, kicks quicktime's butt because it does the things you need it to do. And this is an Apple product! Kai's stuff was a problem not because it was non-standard, but because it was flipping inscrutible. Not just a little different, but other-planet, non-carbon-based-lifeform, no-rosetta-stone different.
Don't get me wrong — I love my Mac — but I don't love it because everything works the same. I love it because mostly, everything actually works. That's the real advantage it has over windows and linux, at least for me. That and not having to turn inverted backflips with a twist (usually in a CLI) to get an application installed (linux) or having to reboot three times if I so much as install a text file under windows (ok, obviously exaggerating, but youy get my drift.)
I reiterate, I don't care if Google earth uses OSX conventions. It's not important, in fact, it is trivial in the literal sense. What is important is that the Mac no longer lacks the functionality. Well, when we can run it, anyway... up until today, all I knew was from the Google page, which says "we're working on it" which isn't very enlightening or encouraging.
Finally, as a developer, I can tell you that the more of the core of an application is cross-platform, the easier it is to port, and the less it will depend upon, or otherwise utilize, a particular platform's standards. It'll probably look most like the platform is was designed upon, but even that isn't a given, especially if there are new UI ideas in the application. You can certainly go too far (Kai's!) but you can also not go far enough (GIMP) where the ported-to OS actually degrades the applications functionality, as happens with the brain-dead window activation approach that I've seen in so many Mac applications.
I well remember the first time I used Photoshop on the PC and found that the menus were acting quite Mac-like... they weren't PC menus at all. Adobe had gone and written their own menu handler so that the Mac menu code (I presume) would no have to be changed at all. The end result was a bit of disorientation (about ten seconds worth) for me, and then on I went, getting work done, in no way seriously inconvenienced. And why? Because it worked. Was it Windows standard UI? No. Did it matter? Nope. Not a bit. All it did was tell me I was working with a port.
So cheers to Google for just getting the job done.:)
...I'm just happy to see it. While I enjoy pretty, what actually matters to me is functionality and reliability. And in this case, simply availability — this has been beta under Windows for quite some time already.
Too much focus on pretty can result in the "Hollywood Effect" —beauty without value, or worse, beauty that impacts value... like recent media player designs or the incredibly bad Kai's interfaces of yore. I've had enough of that kind of craziness.
We know how to manage considerably more heat than the 360
has to deal with. Fact.
Many of the problems are with the cord tumor overheating, not the 360. Fact.
We know how to manage considerably more heat than the cord tumor
has to deal with. Fact.
There are optical drives that won't sign their names in deep crevasses if you tilt them. MS knew about the problem prior to shipping, it's discussed in the docs. They knew that XBoxen were going to get placed on tables, floors, and in the process, get knocked over. It's a product with HUGE appeal for kids and teenagers, for Pete's sake. It would have been fairly trivial to make them robust enough to survive, and picking a drive that wouldn't eat your $50-at-a-pop media when orientation is changed in the most gentle fashion imaginable isn't exactly rocket science, either.
As an engineer, I see this primarily as blindly grasping at form and fumbling function as a direct consequence. I don't think it is excusable; I don't have a problem with requiring reasonable vent space on the main unit, but having to hang the cord tumor by string... that's way, way, way over the top. Can you imagine trying to use one of these in an apartment without air conditioning? Probably set the bloody building on fire.:/
I'm really glad I waited. I have five to buy — three sons, one for me, one for the lady of the house — I think MS really impregnated the canine, here.
We'll see what batch #2 looks like. In the meantime, XBox1 will do.
And BTW... All of our PS2's are original launch units -- and they're all still working fine.
...my local church is not greedy. In fact, everyone I know is as selfless as you get. Hypocrisy does not occur - everyone practices what they preach.
This is why I prefaced that remark with "various brands of"... I am well aware that each of those factors ranges from 0 to 100% across the spectrum. Any organization that meets the standard you describe (religious or otherwise), has done something at least a bit unusual. Good luck with that.
And nobody exerts political control over me. In fact, no political comment is passed and everyone makes their own mind up.
Hmm. So, no part of your church's teachings or matters discussed as consequences of the sect's various teachings exerts pressure upon your political outlook, that is, how you would force others to behave through political means; you are in no way influenced, for instance, to vote for legislation that would control other's sexuality, ability to marry based on sex, usurp their right to make decisions about their own bodies (I have abortion in mind here, but this extends to many other issues such as recreational drug use, suicide, S&M, contraception, pre-marital sexual activity, polygamy and polyandry), debilitate science curriculums with fact-free supposition masquerading as theory... Is that right?
It bothers me that the Catholic "church" causes other - real - Christians to be reviled so much because of certain decidedly non-Christian actions.
I wouldn't be so quick to lay it all at the doorstep of the Catholics. While certainly a major force for many of these things, lots of other Christian organizations are also highly active, as are other religions entirely (it wasn't Christians that flew into the World Trade Center, for instance, nor was it Christians who dug people's brains out for sacrificial purposes in what is now Mexico and South America... it is no accident that religion is the term used when referring to the source of many of society's problems, past, present, and future.)
In fact, if you want a guideline as to what a real Christian should be like, I suggest you read the first 6 books of the New Testament. You can then compare that to any of the "Christians" you believe to be, from what I gather from your comment, essentially cultists. I'd be extremely surprised if any one of them matches.
Well, as it happens, I'm somewhat of an amateur scholar as regards both Christianity and the new testament. So I'm not all that unskilled at seeing where cult-like behavior arises, and I have read the first six books, as well as the rest and a whole slew of related material, many more than six times.
The problem, as always, is that what you, as a self-identified Christian and member of what you consider to be a strictly Christian group, call Christian behavior is just as likely to be laughed out of town by the next batch of Christians, based on how they define Christian behavior.
There is the confusion that arises by the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant — I can cite you many examples where that or that issue is justified by examples from the OT, rather than the NT; there is the human interpretation of the books to deal with; there is human distortion (both ways) of what the NT says; and of course, there is the very broad set of questions about what is metaphor, what is historical fact, what is outright instruction, and what portion of it all, if any, is fiction... all complicated by a huge misunderstanding among laypersons about the level of certainty we can have based on the lack of an accountable historical audit trail for the text.
In the end, I have decided that religion in general is a very bad influence, and I don't want my kids exposed to new ideas about it while they are still somewhat innocent without my being presen
First and foremost, there was never a mention ANYWHERE in the article of a religious group - yet you automatically assumed that was the case - or if not, went ahead and slammed many different religious and cultural groups.
Hmm. "Utah." Ring a bell?
I, as another person has posted, also believe that parents should be interacting and supervising their children - and not leaving everything up to the government.
That "other person" was me.
The only real problem with what this person is doing is your own. You don't want it because it ANNOYS you. How? Because it stops YOU from downloading it at work.
No. I outright own myvariousoperations. If I want to download prawn, I can. Sadly, I'm usually too busy at work. My SO and I do check out the goods at home, though. I deserve a little credit for that, I think.
In any event, this person is only trying to make it easier for people to _filter_ porn, not eliminate it.
My post was intended to demonstrate how ridiculous, and offensive, censorship is in any venue, via humor. I'm truly sorry you didn't understand.
...there's a term called morals. You'd be surprised what a better place it would be if people exercised it every once in a while.
Frankly, I don't see a lack of sexual morality as one of the larger challenges we face.
We have an utterly unjust war going on, our civil rights are being rapidly eroded by local, state and federal government, school boards (of all people) are trying to re-define what science means, children carry guns to school, drunks turn cars into ballistic weapons and get to walk away while munchie-addled pot smokers go to jail, our president is a drooling moron, a huge portion of the nation has no healthcare...
You know, I just can't get worked up about someone pumping hormones over depictions of sexual activity as an actual "problem", other than as one more vector for the government to attempt to control the population. If that's the main focus of your attention, then you and I are two very different people. My concerns about actual sexuality are limited to informed consent and physical safety. I rather think those should be the government's concerns as well, and that should be the end of it. I suspect you wouldn't want my morals forced on you; the reverse is also true: I am almost certainly not interested in conforming to your idea of morals.
Just because YOU haven't experienced something due to your hard-heartedness doesn't mean other people haven't. You are doing exactly the same thing you wrote by forcing _your_ beliefs on others.
So... you seriously believe I was suggesting we put religion and politics on ports we can close... not just nationally, but involving the UN... and leave porn running free around the net.
Listen... I have this really, really terrrrific bridge I'd like to sell, and as it happens, I'm going to make you a very special offer (strictly because I like you... you're obviously a fine, thoughtful fellow.) It's in Brooklyn, and once you own it, you can charge tolls, whatever you want. Just ten thousand bucks, and it's yours. You could make the purchase price back in one day, and hey, I'll let you have $5000 credit, so you only have to pay 1/2 down, the rest when you get it, no hurry, because I trust you. What do you say?
Am I still being too subtle for you?
... and just for the record - the right religion won't debunk logical or scientific thinking. If you think we've mastered every scientific principle and theory in the universe, you are grossly incorrect.
I understand now. The original comment in the parent of the message I replied to (and quoted in it) was:
"Correlation does not imply causality"
That message then said, "It does imply probability, though." In this case, the "it" must mean "correlation", agreed
Hence my comment -- "No, it doesn't."
Parents point was that correllation implies probability of causuality.
My examples show (being obviously wrong) that correlation does not imply probability of causuality, by demonstrating several highly correlated issues that have no bearing on the sample conclusions.
I tried to made it clear that this was what I thought with the first line, so there would be no doubt what I was doing in the list of examples.
Either I really don't understand your point, or you really didn't understand mine. I'd like to resolve that, in case I'm being stupid. So would you do me the favor of explaining your case at length if you still think I was wrong? Thanks in advance.
Sigh. Follow the thread. Those examples were BAD examples; the parent to my post was talking about probability. I was giving examples of MISinterpretations, in order to disprove that assertion. My fault, I should have quoted the parent and spelled it out. Sheesh.
Large % of those in love owned cars (implying cars cause love)
Almost helf of those in love were male (you tell me what it means:-)
Small percentage of those in love owned telescopes (implying telescopes make falling in love unlikely)
Large % of those in love had eaten at McDonalds (implying McDonalds causes love)
That's why negative samples, control groups that isolate the issue under test, repeatability and more are much more significant than correlation. Correlation, by itself, isn't worth much unless you have the rest working for you as well.
After you take your foot out of your mouth, google for "condom failure rates."
Come back when you've got the percentages in hand.
From stanford.edu (you'll forgive me if I trust a Stanford study better than I trust you):
Effectiveness (failure rate): 3%-14%. In 100 users who use a condom correctly and consistently, the lowest estimated failure rate would be 3 pregnancies in one year. In 100 typical users however, the estimated failure rate is 14 pregnancies in one year. The large difference between these two failure rates can be attributed to incorrect and inconsistent use of the condom.
* Approximately 1 in 165 condoms tear during vaginal intercourse
Now. Let's consider. Using the lowest average failure rate, which is 3%, you can expect that in all your thrashing about, something is going to go wrong. It may break (1 in 165 as documented above) or it may overflow, or it may come off. Now the odds of pregnancy pivot on the partners mutal fertility and whether the condom had, or you used, a spermicide, and odds of STDs likewise pivot on the condom's ability to kill things with whatever it is dosed with, if indeed it is dosed with anything, or your level of caution in dosing the targets of your affections with something highly unfreindly to whatever it is.
It's not so cut and dried after all, is it?
Also, there are tons more studies out there. Google it. Condoms have risks, and they are not negligable. I would never depend on a condom for contraception. And funny thing — I have no unwanted children, and I've had a very, very busy sex life.:-)
As for you, each year, the chances of an unexpected pregnancy are 3%. No way around it. That means (a) sudden life change and you adapt, (b) abortion and the associated emotional trauma, (c) an unwanted child you keep, (d) an unwanted child you adopt out.
See why I won't depend on them? My kids were planned, and in my very honest and completely inflexible opinion, that's the way it should always be done unless you are a rich sucker with in-house resident child care. Have the $$$ for diapers and medical care and clothing to hand before you bring a kid into the world. Be ready to put them through school. Be mentally prepared to give up a whole carload of hours that used to be yours to do such mundane things as, say, sleep — and work.
Your advice is bad advice, and I would encourage readers of this thread who doubt me to go do the research. There's only one answer to this issue, and I've laid it out honestly — the person I am replying to is misleading you and there are severe consequences that lie down the road that poster suggests you follow. I'd just as soon everyone was better informed.
Mind, I'm not saying "don't use condoms", I'm saying do not depend on them to protect you. Use multiple birth control methods, use spermacides and regularly test yourself for STDs, and insist that a new partner be tesed before you go plumbing the depths of desire. Until we can kill viri a lot more effectively than we can now, your life may depend on these very tactics.
Once you have a monogamous, tested, certain relationship, you can make some assumptions about STDs. You can't make any assumptions about pregnacy unless wone of you has been neutered. Period. So load the dice in your favor.
As for the comment on overflowing.. That's just plain FUD. It may feel like it is more but the amount of ejaculate is measured in milliliters. There is a large enough reservoir in the condom for that.
You are incorrect. Ejaculate volume, like everything else to do with our reproductive systems, varies from person to person, and while you may be able to use a condom without overflowing, the next person (specifically, me, as it turns out) cannot. You can leave extra space at the end, and the condom can move (either way) especially if there is pre-ejaculate lubricating it — even if the darn thing is so tight you can barely tolerate it. Another issue is time; the average encounter lasts just a few minutes. For those who approach the issue for longer, a condom has to deal with a lot more challenges... at that juncture, presumptions that hold for the average couple are no longer valid.
Don't get me wrong: I glad you've been successful. But other people's mileage does indeed vary. Your experience doesn't trump the numerous studies that have been done on the issue, nor does it trump other experiences, such as my own. All you (and I) can really do is put examples out that we are sure of. You report unmitigated success; I have seen failure personally. And I am not ignorant of how to use them, of that you may be quite certain.
Ok. Let me be a little more blunt, since the long version didn't make an impression.
I really don't want my kids to be exposed to religious preaching without my being there to explain the lack of objective fact that underlies it, as well as the various brands of greed, hypocracy, and political control that are being excercised, subtly or otherwise.
Currently, I manage this by ensuring that I am there when they surf. I am perfectly ready to admit this is more difficult than having someone lock all religious material away from their eyes. That, however, does not (in my opinion) so much solve a problem as it does cause one: Now they know nothing about it, and they're going to be curious, and probably chase it down when I am not around. Still, I'd have more free time, and that has value, even if gained at the expense of my children's ability to deal with reality.
So: If you want porn put on a particular port, I want religion put on its own port as well.
Now, if you don't like that: Why exactly should your failure to monitor your children's activities on the Internet have priority over my failure to do so?
On the other hand, If you do like that: exactly how many things offensive to some segment of the population shall we lock away on specific ports so it is "easy" for parents to opt out? There are millions of issues, and only 65536 ports. So there's a practical issue as well as an administrative one.
Finally, why is software like "Net Nanny" not a reasonable answer if you want to censor your child's network experience? Why is ghettoizing better?
I'm delighted you've found happiness and self-esteem, even given the circumstances you report. However, although this works for you, there is no certainty that it will work for others. Many people have no trouble looking, or not looking, depending on what they prefer to do and with no adverse consequences to their daily lives.
Consider: Every pleasurable behavior can be addictive, if the situation is right and an appropriately susceptible personality comes along. Gambling. Drugs. Alcohol (really just another drug, of course.) Worship. Inventing. Physical abuse. Soldiering. Masturbation. Preaching. Jogging. Popping zits. Checking stocks. Sex. Collecting stray animals. Teaching. Posting on slashdot. Buying lottery tickets. Bingo. Poker. Auctioning and/or buying on EBay. Basically, you name something pleasurable or highly rewarding in any way, and it can turn into addictive behavior. This is incontrovertible fact.
Now, I ask you... are we to lock all those behaviors (and many, many more) down in order to protect the susceptible from themselves? Or should we allow (or require) the susceptible to get a grip, as you apparently have, and leave the rest to make informed, adult choices without having to have unreasonable limitations imposed on them?
Every step towards censorship and ghettoizing is taken with a shout and a hurrah from those who would specify what is right for the rest of us. Politicians love this stuff. Consider how difficult it is to get laws and rules like this un-done, however. I think this is a very poor idea.
The thrust of my "mocking" was to demonstrate that we can ghettoize the things we don't like, but there will be a segment of the population who disagrees. I truly think religion is a bad influence, and I truly think parents are doing evil to their children when they present nonsense mythology to them as if it was fact. But I truly do not think that we ought to ghettoize all Christian sites. Because it's not my business to tell you what you can do, or not do.
Ask me what I think, and I'll tell you. Tell me I should do what you think, and I'll light your pants on fire. See the difference?
Do you seriously think that most porn comes even remotely close to a genuine display of loving sex between two consenting adults?
This question is couched in such a manner as to assume a consensus of values that is not present. This is the primary reason I took the poster to task. Loving sex is one kind of sex, granted; it is not the only kind which is worthwhile across the board. Understand now?
And where did you get the idea that your concept of sex just for fun should be enforced on the rest of humanity (mainly, other peoples children)?
I have no such idea. In fact, I said that you can do whatever you want to your children, implying that the next person can do what they want with theirs, and so on, ad infinitum. What I was saying is that your idea of "loving sex" is no metric for anyone but yourself and those you can control, e.g., your kids.
Oh, give me a fricking break!
Yes, well, if it hadn't been for that ridiculous "loving sex" thing you tossed steaming on the floor, I would have.:-)
And before you accuse me of being a prude I think that most people would agree that most pornography is quite tasteless. If nothing else it will cloud their expectations of what sex should be or is like.
Even if most people would agree, that still does not give them the right to say that others should conform to their preconceptions. What is tasteless to you may be tasteful to me, and vice-versa. Personally, I find sex intriguing and often beautiful. I have a huge amount of fun with it, and I appreciate that others enjoy it in their own ways, whatever those are. The only "hot buttons" internal to the issue I have are informed consent and safety. Other than that, I know better than to think it's any of my business to be critical, unless someone is attempting to step on my own toes.
And I would maintain that most people would not be open to trying some of the things depicted in a lot of pornography.
So? Does that somehow give an imprimatur to your vision of "loving sex"?
I only suggested that it might not be a good thing to expose sexually immature people to hard core pornography.
And I disagree, just as you surmise. Sexuality isn't "hard core" behavior, it is natural, inevitable, and frankly beautiful and interesting. Hiding it from kids (while letting them watch murder, assault, theft, teaching them entirely unsubstantiated tripe about mythological entities and events) is simple prudery, in my view. Kids ride snowboards. You can do that relatively safely. Some people ride snowboards off of cliffs onto avalanche-prone slopes (there's a movie coming out about this very thing, in fact, this spring.) Is it a terrible thing to let those snow-boarding kids see that movie? Will they all immediately decide that's the norm, and go out and leap off ledges? Even though they are the "snow-boarding immature"? The fact is that sexual immaturity is something you resolve with experience and education. Movies are one way to show them the length and breadth of sexuality without having them actually do, yet letting them think about it. When you're a sexual prude, this will frighten you. That's fine for you, and you can in turn inflict your prudery on your kids. My position is that you, and people like you, don't get to inflict it on mine.
That's nice. Again, why is it even relevant to the point that I was trying to make?
The text you are referring to there related to the idea of safety; you brought up coprophilia. Which is, in my evaluation, an unsafe behavior, and indeed, a talk with your kid, as you said, would be called for. I was lumping (heh) coprophilia in with unprotected sex because in the normal context (that is, outside of a movie depicting sex) this can be unsafe behavior as well. Perhaps I was mistaken in that you identified coprophilia as the problem; I confess I did jump to a conclusion, perhaps you are a fan of coprophilia. Was there something else in that scene that had you motivated to talk to your child? Multiple participants, perhaps?
Slashdot Mirror
Not in those terms, because it doesn't "deny reality as [I] see it."
As I see reality, I'm an animal (a biological machine) with some intelligence. More than some animals, less than others. I am fairly certain this is the case for all animals. This makes sense to me, and (so far) I have encountered nothing to make me think otherwise... even a little bit.
I don't think so. If humans (it is silly to consider it to be me, but I will consider it to be people in general) are supposed to be the evidence for design, then I can only conclude that the designer in question was an incompetent fool. From babies born without critical (or simply useful) parts of their anatomy, to the incredibly dangerous and flaw-riddled female role in the reproductive system (which, I should point out, has only just recently begun to be less so, and only by the efforts of other humans, not any god or gods), I see the human condition and human configuration as one long testament to random development and/or extremely poor design. Which definitely leaves out the concept of a god or gods as has commonly been brought forth by the religions I have known and read about.
Yes, it is. It represents a theory being applied to a question for which we do not know the answer. I don't have a problem with not knowing the answer.
Interestingly, there are a number of attempts being made to see if this is a reasonable possibility; even if they find that (for instance) they can create life in a test tube, this does not make it certain that we arose that way. The only way to be absolutely certain is to find some way to observe the event, however far in the past that might be, and I don't think that's too likely, given what we know of how the universe works.
I think this demonstrates a basic failing of many people; they assume that we must have the answers to questions right now. The fact is, some questions may never be answered, or certainly not answered for a long, long time.
To put a fine point on it, if science doesn't provide an answer (yet or ever), there is no particular reason to assume that anything else, such as the bible, provides the answer, either. The more so when alternate sources of ideas, again such as the bible, are riddled with known errors.
I didn't say it did — I said it requires extraordinary evidence, which has not been forthcoming. As it stands, there is no proof, and that places the bible and the stories it tells in a special category with regard to truth: Unknown.
No, in fact it does not. In English, the word is a-theist; the root of this is considered to be a-theos, which meant something similar, but not the same, in Greek — that may be where your error is coming from. You can resolve your confusion by simple reference to a decent dictionary, or doing a little research to determine what those who are atheist say they stand for in general, and how the language is used by them to define those positions (strong [sometimes called naive] atheism adds conviction, weak atheism is the base position of being without belief.)
Please consider: It is amazingly pointless to look at a group, taking the position they stand for "A", when they have clearly stated they stand for "B", and then proceed to argue from the basis of "A."
As for the rest, since your premise was wholly flawed, I decline to go there.
Here's the short version:
Most atheists have gone on to 2nd thought, and further. Seriously.
Now, if I say to you, "Yesterday, I had a ham on rye, and I got it from the deli", how likely are you to believe it? Let's look at it. First, ham on rye is a reasonable foodstuff. Second, delis sell this combo, and it's in the common experience of most people to have that confirmed as objective fact. Now, you don't know if I had it in fact, but inasmuch as it's a reasonable claim, you might be inclined to accept it unless it is shown that I have a habit of lying about my lunch, or it turns out that there is no deli later. ok?
But, if I say to you, "Yesterday, I had manna from heaven, which was given me by an angel", now how seriously are you going to take me? What is manna? How often has it been noted coming from heaven? How many people have been observed to have been fed by an angel? When was the last time anyone photographed or measured an angel? Even if you skip all of that, still, are you going to take me at my word?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you're going to agree that my story is unlikely. Most people would, and for good reason. Here it is: I'm making an extraordinary claim, one that is outside the realm of common (or even known) human experience, and so your instinct is going to be to want some pretty good evidence for my claim before you get all jolly and decide I'm telling you the truth.
The refined phrase is: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Finally, the problem here is that the bible(s) are full of extraordinary claims. People rising from the dead. People being turned into pillars of salt. The entire world being flooded, which would require more water than there is on the planet. Everyone having common ancestors in the persons of Adam and Eve. Geological formation of planets (this one, specifically) in non-geological time frames as well as creation of complex life in very, very short time frames. So, just as you probably found it in your heart to doubt my story of manna from heaven at the hands of an angel, atheists find good reason to doubt the stories told in the bible. These stories make extraordinary claims. Not only is there no extraordinary evidence, there appears to be no evidence at all for those stories, and quite a bit (like fossils, current amount of water on the planet, observed evolution and speciation time frames, various methods of dating geological formations, DNA comparisons between one human being and the next) which actively argue for disproof of some of the specific points made in those stories.
a = "without"
theism = "belief in a god or gods"
a-theism = "without belief in a god or gods"
As a fundamentalist atheist myself, I'm perfectly prepared to say there might be one. In fact, might be two or three. Or 42. Or thousands of them.
But since none have shown their heads, or their works, around my neck of the woods there is no point in getting all tangled up in some belief without a reasonable basis in objective fact to reason from. So I keep the idea in the same drawer with other ideas that require extraordinary evidence, such as pink unicorns, UFOs and telepathy. Sure would be interesting to see. When and if that happens, I'll re-evaluate the situation.
I see your point, though this doesn't affect me the way it does you.
No, it's an OSX thing. I just opened finder, clicked into a directory so the window was well and truly focused and so on, then clicked a link in Safari which was visible below the finder window. Safari came to the top and the window became active, but the link was not followed. These are both about as native OSX app as you can get. This happens all over the place. If you watch for it, I think you'll find it soon enough. Anyway, this isn't so much a poster child for consistancy as it is for someone in the UI department needing a bit of a beating. :)
No. Because the window that has the focus is on top, so it can never be obscured by any other window, GIMP's or otherwise. That's why window-based menus can never get in each other's way.
Huh. Well, I'll buy your argument if you'll tell me how you get to the top of the screen in an instant. I can't, as far as I know -- it's further to roll the mouse to the top than it is to the top of a window, barring the single exception where the window is at the top anyway (in which case it takes just as long.) For me, I have no trouble hitting a UI element, and there's no particular speed difference. I've been mousing just about since there were mice and GUIs, though, and that could be a factor. I paint and draw with a mouse, too, though to be fair, I usually have a considerably better interface to work with than is available on the Mac for image processing and effects work. Not only faster, but more efficient and more flexible, because it naturally uses more of what a mouse can do. I am very, very precise with a mouse, so in-window menus are just no problem at all. So -- how do you get right to the top of the display with less moves than it takes to get to the top of a window that is, for instance, showing its title bar at the bottom third of the display?
Well, I really wasn't trying to go there -- I was trying to say that given two programs that addressed any particular area, I would go for the one that gave me the most features, tools, capabilities, not the one that was UI compliant, that's all. Quicktime was probably a poor example, especially since I wasn't specific about what other software I had in mind. Again, my apologies.
Likewise. :-)
And my exact point is that this affects its value not at all. The only thing that will affect its value here is if the user, that is, me, or you, decides to take an attitude that we're unwilling to use it because it is inconsistant. Me, I want to work on images, not worry about where the menu bar is, or isn't. That's simply a practical outlook. Consistancy is good — it means a (very little) less work for me to learn an application. But it is no barrier to use, to productivity, to quality.
You missed my point entirely. Say you're using Finder. So a Finder window is active. GIMP's been doing something and you were noodling around looking at other image filenames, say. GIMP pops up a dialog that says something like "Compress or save uncompressed?" with a "compress" button and a "don't compress" button. You point at the "compress" button, and you click on it. nothing happens. Why? because instead of clicking the button, OSX has activated the window. It should, indeed, activate the window but it should also have clicked that button. Now you have to click again, on the same button, to get the result you should have already had.
Well, admitting up front that this is subject to various debates, let me point out the following issues:
The fact is, there is more than one way to be usable. I have no, and I mean zero, problem, using the GIMP under OSX because the interface is 100% functional. Running under X. In fact, most of the problems the GIMP has on the Mac are a consequence of OSX, for example, clicking on a window doesn't do what it should based on the UI element clicked upon, instead, it'll activate the window, which is just plain bad UI design, like the constant waste of space at the top of the display for the menu. Just because something is standard, doesn't mean it's good, and that's a fact.
Look at quicktime. It's standard, but it's crippled. Can't save movies (unless you pay extra) can't deal withy mpeg (unless you buy the add-on), yet it's a nice, standard Mac application. Comes to this, other software, even with a non-std interface, kicks quicktime's butt because it does the things you need it to do. And this is an Apple product! Kai's stuff was a problem not because it was non-standard, but because it was flipping inscrutible. Not just a little different, but other-planet, non-carbon-based-lifeform, no-rosetta-stone different.
Don't get me wrong — I love my Mac — but I don't love it because everything works the same. I love it because mostly, everything actually works. That's the real advantage it has over windows and linux, at least for me. That and not having to turn inverted backflips with a twist (usually in a CLI) to get an application installed (linux) or having to reboot three times if I so much as install a text file under windows (ok, obviously exaggerating, but youy get my drift.)
I reiterate, I don't care if Google earth uses OSX conventions. It's not important, in fact, it is trivial in the literal sense. What is important is that the Mac no longer lacks the functionality. Well, when we can run it, anyway... up until today, all I knew was from the Google page, which says "we're working on it" which isn't very enlightening or encouraging.
Finally, as a developer, I can tell you that the more of the core of an application is cross-platform, the easier it is to port, and the less it will depend upon, or otherwise utilize, a particular platform's standards. It'll probably look most like the platform is was designed upon, but even that isn't a given, especially if there are new UI ideas in the application. You can certainly go too far (Kai's!) but you can also not go far enough (GIMP) where the ported-to OS actually degrades the applications functionality, as happens with the brain-dead window activation approach that I've seen in so many Mac applications.
I well remember the first time I used Photoshop on the PC and found that the menus were acting quite Mac-like... they weren't PC menus at all. Adobe had gone and written their own menu handler so that the Mac menu code (I presume) would no have to be changed at all. The end result was a bit of disorientation (about ten seconds worth) for me, and then on I went, getting work done, in no way seriously inconvenienced. And why? Because it worked. Was it Windows standard UI? No. Did it matter? Nope. Not a bit. All it did was tell me I was working with a port.
So cheers to Google for just getting the job done. :)
Too much focus on pretty can result in the "Hollywood Effect" —beauty without value, or worse, beauty that impacts value... like recent media player designs or the incredibly bad Kai's interfaces of yore. I've had enough of that kind of craziness.
As an engineer, I see this primarily as blindly grasping at form and fumbling function as a direct consequence. I don't think it is excusable; I don't have a problem with requiring reasonable vent space on the main unit, but having to hang the cord tumor by string... that's way, way, way over the top. Can you imagine trying to use one of these in an apartment without air conditioning? Probably set the bloody building on fire. :/
I'm really glad I waited. I have five to buy — three sons, one for me, one for the lady of the house — I think MS really impregnated the canine, here. We'll see what batch #2 looks like. In the meantime, XBox1 will do.
And BTW... All of our PS2's are original launch units -- and they're all still working fine.
This is why I prefaced that remark with "various brands of"... I am well aware that each of those factors ranges from 0 to 100% across the spectrum. Any organization that meets the standard you describe (religious or otherwise), has done something at least a bit unusual. Good luck with that.
Hmm. So, no part of your church's teachings or matters discussed as consequences of the sect's various teachings exerts pressure upon your political outlook, that is, how you would force others to behave through political means; you are in no way influenced, for instance, to vote for legislation that would control other's sexuality, ability to marry based on sex, usurp their right to make decisions about their own bodies (I have abortion in mind here, but this extends to many other issues such as recreational drug use, suicide, S&M, contraception, pre-marital sexual activity, polygamy and polyandry), debilitate science curriculums with fact-free supposition masquerading as theory... Is that right?
I wouldn't be so quick to lay it all at the doorstep of the Catholics. While certainly a major force for many of these things, lots of other Christian organizations are also highly active, as are other religions entirely (it wasn't Christians that flew into the World Trade Center, for instance, nor was it Christians who dug people's brains out for sacrificial purposes in what is now Mexico and South America... it is no accident that religion is the term used when referring to the source of many of society's problems, past, present, and future.)
Well, as it happens, I'm somewhat of an amateur scholar as regards both Christianity and the new testament. So I'm not all that unskilled at seeing where cult-like behavior arises, and I have read the first six books, as well as the rest and a whole slew of related material, many more than six times.
The problem, as always, is that what you, as a self-identified Christian and member of what you consider to be a strictly Christian group, call Christian behavior is just as likely to be laughed out of town by the next batch of Christians, based on how they define Christian behavior.
There is the confusion that arises by the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant — I can cite you many examples where that or that issue is justified by examples from the OT, rather than the NT; there is the human interpretation of the books to deal with; there is human distortion (both ways) of what the NT says; and of course, there is the very broad set of questions about what is metaphor, what is historical fact, what is outright instruction, and what portion of it all, if any, is fiction... all complicated by a huge misunderstanding among laypersons about the level of certainty we can have based on the lack of an accountable historical audit trail for the text.
In the end, I have decided that religion in general is a very bad influence, and I don't want my kids exposed to new ideas about it while they are still somewhat innocent without my being presen
Hmm. "Utah." Ring a bell?
That "other person" was me.
No. I outright own my various operations. If I want to download prawn, I can. Sadly, I'm usually too busy at work. My SO and I do check out the goods at home, though. I deserve a little credit for that, I think.
My post was intended to demonstrate how ridiculous, and offensive, censorship is in any venue, via humor. I'm truly sorry you didn't understand.
Frankly, I don't see a lack of sexual morality as one of the larger challenges we face.
We have an utterly unjust war going on, our civil rights are being rapidly eroded by local, state and federal government, school boards (of all people) are trying to re-define what science means, children carry guns to school, drunks turn cars into ballistic weapons and get to walk away while munchie-addled pot smokers go to jail, our president is a drooling moron, a huge portion of the nation has no healthcare...
You know, I just can't get worked up about someone pumping hormones over depictions of sexual activity as an actual "problem", other than as one more vector for the government to attempt to control the population. If that's the main focus of your attention, then you and I are two very different people. My concerns about actual sexuality are limited to informed consent and physical safety. I rather think those should be the government's concerns as well, and that should be the end of it. I suspect you wouldn't want my morals forced on you; the reverse is also true: I am almost certainly not interested in conforming to your idea of morals.
So... you seriously believe I was suggesting we put religion and politics on ports we can close... not just nationally, but involving the UN... and leave porn running free around the net.
Listen... I have this really, really terrrrific bridge I'd like to sell, and as it happens, I'm going to make you a very special offer (strictly because I like you... you're obviously a fine, thoughtful fellow.) It's in Brooklyn, and once you own it, you can charge tolls, whatever you want. Just ten thousand bucks, and it's yours. You could make the purchase price back in one day, and hey, I'll let you have $5000 credit, so you only have to pay 1/2 down, the rest when you get it, no hurry, because I trust you. What do you say?
Am I still being too subtle for you?
I understand now. The original comment in the parent of the message I replied to (and quoted in it) was: "Correlation does not imply causality" That message then said, "It does imply probability, though." In this case, the "it" must mean "correlation", agreed Hence my comment -- "No, it doesn't."
My examples show (being obviously wrong) that correlation does not imply probability of causuality, by demonstrating several highly correlated issues that have no bearing on the sample conclusions.
I tried to made it clear that this was what I thought with the first line, so there would be no doubt what I was doing in the list of examples.
Either I really don't understand your point, or you really didn't understand mine. I'd like to resolve that, in case I'm being stupid. So would you do me the favor of explaining your case at length if you still think I was wrong? Thanks in advance.
Sigh. Follow the thread. Those examples were BAD examples; the parent to my post was talking about probability. I was giving examples of MISinterpretations, in order to disprove that assertion. My fault, I should have quoted the parent and spelled it out. Sheesh.
That's what I said. I suggest you read for content. :)
That's why negative samples, control groups that isolate the issue under test, repeatability and more are much more significant than correlation. Correlation, by itself, isn't worth much unless you have the rest working for you as well.
Now, see, if you don't write your own patches, you're just a user. :-)
Come back when you've got the percentages in hand.
From stanford.edu (you'll forgive me if I trust a Stanford study better than I trust you):
Now. Let's consider. Using the lowest average failure rate, which is 3%, you can expect that in all your thrashing about, something is going to go wrong. It may break (1 in 165 as documented above) or it may overflow, or it may come off. Now the odds of pregnancy pivot on the partners mutal fertility and whether the condom had, or you used, a spermicide, and odds of STDs likewise pivot on the condom's ability to kill things with whatever it is dosed with, if indeed it is dosed with anything, or your level of caution in dosing the targets of your affections with something highly unfreindly to whatever it is.
It's not so cut and dried after all, is it?
Also, there are tons more studies out there. Google it. Condoms have risks, and they are not negligable. I would never depend on a condom for contraception. And funny thing — I have no unwanted children, and I've had a very, very busy sex life. :-)
As for you, each year, the chances of an unexpected pregnancy are 3%. No way around it. That means (a) sudden life change and you adapt, (b) abortion and the associated emotional trauma, (c) an unwanted child you keep, (d) an unwanted child you adopt out.
See why I won't depend on them? My kids were planned, and in my very honest and completely inflexible opinion, that's the way it should always be done unless you are a rich sucker with in-house resident child care. Have the $$$ for diapers and medical care and clothing to hand before you bring a kid into the world. Be ready to put them through school. Be mentally prepared to give up a whole carload of hours that used to be yours to do such mundane things as, say, sleep — and work.
Your advice is bad advice, and I would encourage readers of this thread who doubt me to go do the research. There's only one answer to this issue, and I've laid it out honestly — the person I am replying to is misleading you and there are severe consequences that lie down the road that poster suggests you follow. I'd just as soon everyone was better informed.
Mind, I'm not saying "don't use condoms", I'm saying do not depend on them to protect you. Use multiple birth control methods, use spermacides and regularly test yourself for STDs, and insist that a new partner be tesed before you go plumbing the depths of desire. Until we can kill viri a lot more effectively than we can now, your life may depend on these very tactics.
Once you have a monogamous, tested, certain relationship, you can make some assumptions about STDs. You can't make any assumptions about pregnacy unless wone of you has been neutered. Period. So load the dice in your favor.
You are incorrect. Ejaculate volume, like everything else to do with our reproductive systems, varies from person to person, and while you may be able to use a condom without overflowing, the next person (specifically, me, as it turns out) cannot. You can leave extra space at the end, and the condom can move (either way) especially if there is pre-ejaculate lubricating it — even if the darn thing is so tight you can barely tolerate it. Another issue is time; the average encounter lasts just a few minutes. For those who approach the issue for longer, a condom has to deal with a lot more challenges... at that juncture, presumptions that hold for the average couple are no longer valid.
Don't get me wrong: I glad you've been successful. But other people's mileage does indeed vary. Your experience doesn't trump the numerous studies that have been done on the issue, nor does it trump other experiences, such as my own. All you (and I) can really do is put examples out that we are sure of. You report unmitigated success; I have seen failure personally. And I am not ignorant of how to use them, of that you may be quite certain.
I really don't want my kids to be exposed to religious preaching without my being there to explain the lack of objective fact that underlies it, as well as the various brands of greed, hypocracy, and political control that are being excercised, subtly or otherwise.
Currently, I manage this by ensuring that I am there when they surf. I am perfectly ready to admit this is more difficult than having someone lock all religious material away from their eyes. That, however, does not (in my opinion) so much solve a problem as it does cause one: Now they know nothing about it, and they're going to be curious, and probably chase it down when I am not around. Still, I'd have more free time, and that has value, even if gained at the expense of my children's ability to deal with reality.
So: If you want porn put on a particular port, I want religion put on its own port as well.
Now, if you don't like that: Why exactly should your failure to monitor your children's activities on the Internet have priority over my failure to do so?
On the other hand, If you do like that: exactly how many things offensive to some segment of the population shall we lock away on specific ports so it is "easy" for parents to opt out? There are millions of issues, and only 65536 ports. So there's a practical issue as well as an administrative one.
Finally, why is software like "Net Nanny" not a reasonable answer if you want to censor your child's network experience? Why is ghettoizing better?
Consider: Every pleasurable behavior can be addictive, if the situation is right and an appropriately susceptible personality comes along. Gambling. Drugs. Alcohol (really just another drug, of course.) Worship. Inventing. Physical abuse. Soldiering. Masturbation. Preaching. Jogging. Popping zits. Checking stocks. Sex. Collecting stray animals. Teaching. Posting on slashdot. Buying lottery tickets. Bingo. Poker. Auctioning and/or buying on EBay. Basically, you name something pleasurable or highly rewarding in any way, and it can turn into addictive behavior. This is incontrovertible fact.
Now, I ask you... are we to lock all those behaviors (and many, many more) down in order to protect the susceptible from themselves? Or should we allow (or require) the susceptible to get a grip, as you apparently have, and leave the rest to make informed, adult choices without having to have unreasonable limitations imposed on them?
Every step towards censorship and ghettoizing is taken with a shout and a hurrah from those who would specify what is right for the rest of us. Politicians love this stuff. Consider how difficult it is to get laws and rules like this un-done, however. I think this is a very poor idea.
The thrust of my "mocking" was to demonstrate that we can ghettoize the things we don't like, but there will be a segment of the population who disagrees. I truly think religion is a bad influence, and I truly think parents are doing evil to their children when they present nonsense mythology to them as if it was fact. But I truly do not think that we ought to ghettoize all Christian sites. Because it's not my business to tell you what you can do, or not do.
Ask me what I think, and I'll tell you. Tell me I should do what you think, and I'll light your pants on fire. See the difference?
This question is couched in such a manner as to assume a consensus of values that is not present. This is the primary reason I took the poster to task. Loving sex is one kind of sex, granted; it is not the only kind which is worthwhile across the board. Understand now?
I have no such idea. In fact, I said that you can do whatever you want to your children, implying that the next person can do what they want with theirs, and so on, ad infinitum. What I was saying is that your idea of "loving sex" is no metric for anyone but yourself and those you can control, e.g., your kids.
Yes, well, if it hadn't been for that ridiculous "loving sex" thing you tossed steaming on the floor, I would have. :-)
Even if most people would agree, that still does not give them the right to say that others should conform to their preconceptions. What is tasteless to you may be tasteful to me, and vice-versa. Personally, I find sex intriguing and often beautiful. I have a huge amount of fun with it, and I appreciate that others enjoy it in their own ways, whatever those are. The only "hot buttons" internal to the issue I have are informed consent and safety. Other than that, I know better than to think it's any of my business to be critical, unless someone is attempting to step on my own toes.
So? Does that somehow give an imprimatur to your vision of "loving sex"?
And I disagree, just as you surmise. Sexuality isn't "hard core" behavior, it is natural, inevitable, and frankly beautiful and interesting. Hiding it from kids (while letting them watch murder, assault, theft, teaching them entirely unsubstantiated tripe about mythological entities and events) is simple prudery, in my view. Kids ride snowboards. You can do that relatively safely. Some people ride snowboards off of cliffs onto avalanche-prone slopes (there's a movie coming out about this very thing, in fact, this spring.) Is it a terrible thing to let those snow-boarding kids see that movie? Will they all immediately decide that's the norm, and go out and leap off ledges? Even though they are the "snow-boarding immature"? The fact is that sexual immaturity is something you resolve with experience and education. Movies are one way to show them the length and breadth of sexuality without having them actually do, yet letting them think about it. When you're a sexual prude, this will frighten you. That's fine for you, and you can in turn inflict your prudery on your kids. My position is that you, and people like you, don't get to inflict it on mine.
The text you are referring to there related to the idea of safety; you brought up coprophilia. Which is, in my evaluation, an unsafe behavior, and indeed, a talk with your kid, as you said, would be called for. I was lumping (heh) coprophilia in with unprotected sex because in the normal context (that is, outside of a movie depicting sex) this can be unsafe behavior as well. Perhaps I was mistaken in that you identified coprophilia as the problem; I confess I did jump to a conclusion, perhaps you are a fan of coprophilia. Was there something else in that scene that had you motivated to talk to your child? Multiple participants, perhaps?