And, interestingly enough, Kwyjibo is a cromulent proper noun. The Kwyjibo iron oxide-Cu-Au deposit can be found in eastern Canada; here's a map showing its location.
You're right, I do think it prudent (and a bit prudish, to many here) to wait a while before taking the plunge. There is a lot of emotional stuff that comes along with sex. At the very least I think kids should wait until their later teenage years to start experimenting with that stuff. Waiting does not preclude developing a healthy sex life, though. It is true that some who are taught to wait until marriage are taught poorly, and don't/can't have a healthy attitude towards one of the most sublime things in this life.
As a point of pedantry, I did say that parents have an impact, for good or bad; I guess my parents had a negative influence on this part of my life!
You know, not all teens have sex. Some of us even chose not to have sex in our teenage years. You're right that parents cant control when teens have sex, but parents can have a huge impact, good and bad, when it comes to how children think of sex and when they choose to have it.
That makes sense. I was thinking of tritium, which is used to date groundwater - or at least let you know if an aquifer has recharged in the last 50 years, or so. Thanks for setting me straight; I learned something today!
One last reply before I get on with my life. I don't recall ever saying that the church isn't morally superior, or even that the church didn't keep the priesthood from the blacks for nearly 150 years (some blacks in the early church did hold the priesthood).
No, I was just saying that the quotes you provide do nothing to show that the school (or schools, when Univ. Utah is included as an institution formed by organizations controlled by the church) was founded on principles of racism, etc. You could sway me by showing quotes about BYU (and/or the U) that mention how racism is a fundamental principle that guided the schools' founding and mission.
That still does nothing to prove that BYU was founded on principles of racism and moral superiority. The University of Utah was founded in 1850, by the church-controlled General Assembly (Brigham Young was the governor). Is this institution also founded on principles of racism, moral superiority and hatred of atheism?
And your last statement "you wouldn't know" why is false. I am familiar with those arguments.
Okay, you have a point that there are some academic freedom issues at BYU, especially in the humanities. You likely would get at least a good talking to if you wrote a paper about the archeological evidence against the Book of Mormon. (There is some archeological evidence supporting the Book or Mormon, but it is rather shaky.)
I think that you could probably get away with writing a paper about the political climate surrounding the 1978 revelation granting blacks the priesthood. While the climate surrounding the revelation (or "revelation" if you prefer) may have been political, those involved in the decision certainly thought that the revelation itself was more than just a savvy political decision. Link
And LDS women as second class citizens? I've never fully understood that attitude.
One more thing: sorry about the douche bag comment. A little caught up in the moment.
I know that, as an AC, you're unlikely to read this, but oh well. First, your question about what are half-truths: the part of a previous post where copponex stated the school was founded on principles of "racism, moral superiority, and hatred of atheists". Okay, so he produced a quote that might be interpreted as supporting the school being founded as a response to an atheist education. But the other two?
Citing the dress and grooming standards as being there because church members "fear" the female body? That's disingenuous, at best. And his point about "forced religion" is just false. Yes, you must get an endorsement from an ecclesiastical leader, basically stating that you are willing to abide by the school's regulations, but that's hardly forced religion. And I think that the fact that it's a church school is very relevant and excuses seemingly odd behavior like the dress and grooming standards. The church owns the school, and all who go there either agree to abide by the rules the church sets up, or goes elsewhere for their education.
And yes, the poster quoted parts of the honor code, but took them a little out of context and spun them in a way that did make BYU look bad. I valued my time there, and feel a need to right a perceived wrong.
You must have some grudge against the LDS church to be trolling so much on this thread. Nevertheless, I'm going to respond to a couple of your points.
First point: the beard thing. I agree, this is pretty lame. The dress and grooming standards have changed over the years, and hopefully one day neatly trimmed beards will be allowed. I've heard that the anti-beard regulations came about in the 60's when the hippies wore beards, and were thought of as some sort of representation of the counter culture, which doesn't really jive with LDS doctrines. Times have changed. I must say, though, that if that's the funniest thing you've read in the last 24 hours, you must be starved for entertainment.
Second point: mixed gender field trips. They are allowed, you just need to make sure the men and women aren't sharing tents. As you probably know, premarital sex is against LDS doctrine. This is a small measure to ensure students aren't breaking the rules while on official business. Dress and grooming standards are along this same line.
Third point: "fear" of gays. BYU is a church school. LDS doctrine states that homosexuality is bad, so the church's school isn't going to allow anybody to encourage behavior that goes against church doctrine.
Fourth point: Ecclesiastical endorsements. BYU is a church school. They strive for a religious, education along side the more secular one. There is no requirement that you be a practicing member of ANY particular religion, just that you get "cleared" from your own ecclesiastical leader. If you don't belong to any particular church (presumably even if you're an atheist) you can meet with LDS leaders to get an endorsemnt. This is mainly to ensure that the students will abide by the school's honor code, which you find so humorous and offensive.
I'm a graduate of the BYU geology department. I got a fantastic education that prepared me well for grad school and a career in science. I am happy to see the department get this press. I'm less happy at douche bags like yourself using this platform to spread half-truths and misinformation about my alma mater. If you don't like the standards, nobody's going to force you to live them, or even go near the BYU campus.
So you're suggesting that any group of politicians is represents a good sampling of the voters that participated in the general election and voted them into office?
Agreed. The parent makes an important distinction between Utah's Capitol Hill and Utah. There's a higher concentration of crazies up at the Capitol than in the population at large.
Not that I agree with the bill, but I suppose I could be considered one of those militant constitutional crusaders from Utah.
I believe the argument is somewhere along the lines of, "Criminals give up their rights, including the right to keep the state out of their business, when they commit a crime." I doubt you'd find too many people who disagree with this line of reasoning. However, there is that probable cause thing that makes legislation like this confusing to me.
On the other hand, law abiding citizens do expect the government to stay out their business. This holds true for a range of issues, be it health care, perceived land grabs for environmental protection (link), gun control, etc.
Not saying I agree with all aspects of where this reasoning goes, but you asked how these positions are rationalized.
You make some good points, but I would have to disagree with what appears to be the focus of your argument and many, many others on this page: that this is wrong because she plagiarized copyrighted work. I disagree. This is wrong because she was trying to pass someone else's work as her own.
It doesn't matter if the work has been out there for hundreds of years, landing it squarely in the public domain. Plagiarism is dishonest, regardless of whether or not it happens to be illegal where you live.
Giving the students the slides before class has two side effects: 1) Some students don't come to class. 2) Those that do come to class tend to take fewer notes, leading to decreased comprehension.
Agreed. I read the NY Times article the other day, and it struck me that at least some of these systems are touchscreens. I can't be the only one who relies on feel to push the right button to change the radio station so I don't have to take my eyes off the road.
While I don't really see it as a problem now, I fear that a few years down the road these computer systems will be standard on all cars, and it will be rare that a car doesn't have some huge touchscreen in the center of the dash distracting drivers and passengers, alike.
This was a big reason for the invention of copyright in the _first_ place, to control publication of the Bible. This was partly to prevent "unlettered" people from re-interpreting things in conflict with official doctrine, and is a big part of why documents are kept from citizens throughout history.
The other reason was to prevent modified copies from being published. If you own a print shop, it's relatively easy to modify the text to your advantage, and if you're maintaining a centralized organization like a government, or a church, you do _not_ want people editing the key rulebook without your knowledge and using it locally. Worse yet, they might publish it in local languages instead of Latin, and then _anyone_ could understand its words without a priest!
I think I'd like to see a citation for that claim. A quick scanning of this and this appear to contradict what you just wrote.
You see, actually that's an open question. There are several other alternatives that might have lead to the creation of oil, the most promising being underground bacteria that live from geothermal and radioactive food sources (yes there are bacteria that "eat" radioactivity).
Actually, it's about as open a question as is evolution among biologists and paleontologists.
Exploration for coal and oil the "Dead Things Turn into Oil and Coal, Given the Right Conditions" hypothesis has been wildly successful. All other sources of carbon (from the mantle, etc.) pump far too little carbon into the upper crust for them to be viable mechanisms.
You're right that the equator is considerably south of the 45th parallel. However, you forget that continents move around, given enough time. So in the Cambrian North America (Laurentia) was near the equator - here's a map. Fast forward 320 million years to when the dinosaurs began to rule the earth, and North America is approaching where it is today - here's another map. Note how Alberta is approaching the 45th parallel, where it is found in your atlas.
You need to get yourself a different atlas if you're going to think about things that happen over geologic timescales.
Slashdot Mirror
Undoing errant mod
And, interestingly enough, Kwyjibo is a cromulent proper noun. The Kwyjibo iron oxide-Cu-Au deposit can be found in eastern Canada; here's a map showing its location.
You're right, I do think it prudent (and a bit prudish, to many here) to wait a while before taking the plunge. There is a lot of emotional stuff that comes along with sex. At the very least I think kids should wait until their later teenage years to start experimenting with that stuff. Waiting does not preclude developing a healthy sex life, though. It is true that some who are taught to wait until marriage are taught poorly, and don't/can't have a healthy attitude towards one of the most sublime things in this life.
As a point of pedantry, I did say that parents have an impact, for good or bad; I guess my parents had a negative influence on this part of my life!
You know, not all teens have sex. Some of us even chose not to have sex in our teenage years. You're right that parents cant control when teens have sex, but parents can have a huge impact, good and bad, when it comes to how children think of sex and when they choose to have it.
That makes sense. I was thinking of tritium, which is used to date groundwater - or at least let you know if an aquifer has recharged in the last 50 years, or so. Thanks for setting me straight; I learned something today!
It sounds like you're thinking of tritium (3H).
One last reply before I get on with my life. I don't recall ever saying that the church isn't morally superior, or even that the church didn't keep the priesthood from the blacks for nearly 150 years (some blacks in the early church did hold the priesthood).
No, I was just saying that the quotes you provide do nothing to show that the school (or schools, when Univ. Utah is included as an institution formed by organizations controlled by the church) was founded on principles of racism, etc. You could sway me by showing quotes about BYU (and/or the U) that mention how racism is a fundamental principle that guided the schools' founding and mission.
That still does nothing to prove that BYU was founded on principles of racism and moral superiority. The University of Utah was founded in 1850, by the church-controlled General Assembly (Brigham Young was the governor). Is this institution also founded on principles of racism, moral superiority and hatred of atheism?
And your last statement "you wouldn't know" why is false. I am familiar with those arguments.
You posted that elsewhere, but I missed the part where BYU was founded on those principles.
Okay, you have a point that there are some academic freedom issues at BYU, especially in the humanities. You likely would get at least a good talking to if you wrote a paper about the archeological evidence against the Book of Mormon. (There is some archeological evidence supporting the Book or Mormon, but it is rather shaky.)
I think that you could probably get away with writing a paper about the political climate surrounding the 1978 revelation granting blacks the priesthood. While the climate surrounding the revelation (or "revelation" if you prefer) may have been political, those involved in the decision certainly thought that the revelation itself was more than just a savvy political decision. Link
And LDS women as second class citizens? I've never fully understood that attitude.
One more thing: sorry about the douche bag comment. A little caught up in the moment.
I know that, as an AC, you're unlikely to read this, but oh well. First, your question about what are half-truths: the part of a previous post where copponex stated the school was founded on principles of "racism, moral superiority, and hatred of atheists". Okay, so he produced a quote that might be interpreted as supporting the school being founded as a response to an atheist education. But the other two?
Citing the dress and grooming standards as being there because church members "fear" the female body? That's disingenuous, at best. And his point about "forced religion" is just false. Yes, you must get an endorsement from an ecclesiastical leader, basically stating that you are willing to abide by the school's regulations, but that's hardly forced religion. And I think that the fact that it's a church school is very relevant and excuses seemingly odd behavior like the dress and grooming standards. The church owns the school, and all who go there either agree to abide by the rules the church sets up, or goes elsewhere for their education.
And yes, the poster quoted parts of the honor code, but took them a little out of context and spun them in a way that did make BYU look bad. I valued my time there, and feel a need to right a perceived wrong.
You must have some grudge against the LDS church to be trolling so much on this thread. Nevertheless, I'm going to respond to a couple of your points.
First point: the beard thing. I agree, this is pretty lame. The dress and grooming standards have changed over the years, and hopefully one day neatly trimmed beards will be allowed. I've heard that the anti-beard regulations came about in the 60's when the hippies wore beards, and were thought of as some sort of representation of the counter culture, which doesn't really jive with LDS doctrines. Times have changed. I must say, though, that if that's the funniest thing you've read in the last 24 hours, you must be starved for entertainment.
Second point: mixed gender field trips. They are allowed, you just need to make sure the men and women aren't sharing tents. As you probably know, premarital sex is against LDS doctrine. This is a small measure to ensure students aren't breaking the rules while on official business. Dress and grooming standards are along this same line.
Third point: "fear" of gays. BYU is a church school. LDS doctrine states that homosexuality is bad, so the church's school isn't going to allow anybody to encourage behavior that goes against church doctrine.
Fourth point: Ecclesiastical endorsements. BYU is a church school. They strive for a religious, education along side the more secular one. There is no requirement that you be a practicing member of ANY particular religion, just that you get "cleared" from your own ecclesiastical leader. If you don't belong to any particular church (presumably even if you're an atheist) you can meet with LDS leaders to get an endorsemnt. This is mainly to ensure that the students will abide by the school's honor code, which you find so humorous and offensive.
I'm a graduate of the BYU geology department. I got a fantastic education that prepared me well for grad school and a career in science. I am happy to see the department get this press. I'm less happy at douche bags like yourself using this platform to spread half-truths and misinformation about my alma mater. If you don't like the standards, nobody's going to force you to live them, or even go near the BYU campus.
So you're suggesting that any group of politicians is represents a good sampling of the voters that participated in the general election and voted them into office?
Agreed. The parent makes an important distinction between Utah's Capitol Hill and Utah. There's a higher concentration of crazies up at the Capitol than in the population at large.
Not that I agree with the bill, but I suppose I could be considered one of those militant constitutional crusaders from Utah.
I believe the argument is somewhere along the lines of, "Criminals give up their rights, including the right to keep the state out of their business, when they commit a crime." I doubt you'd find too many people who disagree with this line of reasoning. However, there is that probable cause thing that makes legislation like this confusing to me.
On the other hand, law abiding citizens do expect the government to stay out their business. This holds true for a range of issues, be it health care, perceived land grabs for environmental protection (link), gun control, etc.
Not saying I agree with all aspects of where this reasoning goes, but you asked how these positions are rationalized.
Undoing errant mod
You make some good points, but I would have to disagree with what appears to be the focus of your argument and many, many others on this page: that this is wrong because she plagiarized copyrighted work. I disagree. This is wrong because she was trying to pass someone else's work as her own.
It doesn't matter if the work has been out there for hundreds of years, landing it squarely in the public domain. Plagiarism is dishonest, regardless of whether or not it happens to be illegal where you live.
I have done this. I recommend against it.
Giving the students the slides before class has two side effects: 1) Some students don't come to class. 2) Those that do come to class tend to take fewer notes, leading to decreased comprehension.
Agreed. I read the NY Times article the other day, and it struck me that at least some of these systems are touchscreens. I can't be the only one who relies on feel to push the right button to change the radio station so I don't have to take my eyes off the road.
While I don't really see it as a problem now, I fear that a few years down the road these computer systems will be standard on all cars, and it will be rare that a car doesn't have some huge touchscreen in the center of the dash distracting drivers and passengers, alike.
This was a big reason for the invention of copyright in the _first_ place, to control publication of the Bible. This was partly to prevent "unlettered" people from re-interpreting things in conflict with official doctrine, and is a big part of why documents are kept from citizens throughout history.
The other reason was to prevent modified copies from being published. If you own a print shop, it's relatively easy to modify the text to your advantage, and if you're maintaining a centralized organization like a government, or a church, you do _not_ want people editing the key rulebook without your knowledge and using it locally. Worse yet, they might publish it in local languages instead of Latin, and then _anyone_ could understand its words without a priest!
I think I'd like to see a citation for that claim. A quick scanning of this and this appear to contradict what you just wrote.
If that happens, the terrorists have won.
Typing this with my big hands on my 12" PowerBook with full-sized keys. Hands not cramped.
That doesn't make it a right. It just makes it a law.
You see, actually that's an open question. There are several other alternatives that might have lead to the creation of oil, the most promising being underground bacteria that live from geothermal and radioactive food sources (yes there are bacteria that "eat" radioactivity).
Actually, it's about as open a question as is evolution among biologists and paleontologists.
Exploration for coal and oil the "Dead Things Turn into Oil and Coal, Given the Right Conditions" hypothesis has been wildly successful. All other sources of carbon (from the mantle, etc.) pump far too little carbon into the upper crust for them to be viable mechanisms.
You're right that the equator is considerably south of the 45th parallel. However, you forget that continents move around, given enough time. So in the Cambrian North America (Laurentia) was near the equator - here's a map. Fast forward 320 million years to when the dinosaurs began to rule the earth, and North America is approaching where it is today - here's another map. Note how Alberta is approaching the 45th parallel, where it is found in your atlas.
You need to get yourself a different atlas if you're going to think about things that happen over geologic timescales.