Having been recently bit by the Facebook privacy issue (or lack of, more appropriately), I had a lot more incentive to try an alternative that would respect my privacy. I recently lost a friend, whom I have known since high school for 27 years, over some comments I made on a thread on Facebook to an entity that I am "friends" with there which he neither knew or cared to know, concerning a rather current political "hot topic". My comments were made and directed to a selected group of people that I would have never shared publicly in person, especially with this friend who vastly differs from opinion with mine and who's feelings I respected (on a side note, IMO, this is a rather trivial matter to throw away what used to be at one time a close friendship and of that duration, but whatever).
Point is, Facebook seems to feel that ANYTHING I post should be of interest to ANYONE who is on my friends list, whether those people know each other or not. A sentiment I don't share. I couldn't care less what comment one of my friends makes on a picture someone posted whom I don't know or never will know or on a thread they commented on to some random person, etc. Isn't that type of behavior considered eavesdropping, spying, or dare I say borderline stalking in the real world? Why does Facebook think it fine to do by default with anyone who is part of their community, I wonder (unless explicitly given permission to do so by said individual)?
Anyway, let's just say that G+ seems very appealing to me right now. Problem is, no one I care about socializing with online is there or posts at all. In fact, this/. article inspired me to check on my G+ profile and what I found was a post from a friend from July of last year. Not very a compelling reason to want me to convert. Facebook, on the other hand, has many posts from family and friends that I personally know who may live far away geographically, and is a convenient way to keep in contact rather than try and play phone tag or email tag, etc. (they post when they have the time and I can read it and respond when I have time and it is more "interactive" as a whole over other mediums).
So for now, Facebook is the winner to me even with the annoying layout and mixture of irrelevant drivel (the new "Trending Articles" placed on the home page Newsfeed just sucks and doesn't add to my enrichment there at all). I am just very much more cognizant to the fact that anything I post there must be something I wouldn't mind the entire world knowing. I will stick with it and take the good with the bad. If I want to say something to a friend privately, I will just send an old fashioned email or perhaps a private message on Facebook, for the time being.
Nah, I wasn't generalizing anyone. I was never referring to who wanted to be a houswife by a cognigtive choice using reason, just the fact that nature kind of has the tendencies of certain roles engineered into it to a degree. I don't think there is much more that can be debated with that point. But I do understand your position and the desire to make "your own choice" in the equation and that is well respected in our modern society by many including myself.
I have been reading your commentaries on various posts on this thread and while I don't disagree with the core logic of your content, I do think there is some other factors to consider in this argument.
One of them is two chemicals that the human body produces called estrogen and testosterone (yes, I realize there are others also). Last time I checked, science has dicated that while the various quantities produced in a particular gender can vary, the general rule is the female gender produced more estorgen and the male gender more testosterone. And while we may not like it, those chemicals have an effect on how a human being feels emotionally, reacts to certain situations, and even "thinks" in general. Which leads me to my point. Estrogen can be linked to one having more of a "nuturing" attitude, while testosterone can be linked to having more of an "agressive" and/or "go getter" attitude. And while any gender can adapt and even enjoy the "house" caretaker and childrearing role, nature itself tells us that children and especially babies need more "nuturing" in the formative early years. It is even displyed in the animal kingdom to an extent. More females in the animal species nurture and make nesting provisions then the male in their species (and yes, before you go site and example to the contrary, I do realize that there are certainlly exceptions). So maybe nature itself explains why more women seem to gravitate towards "housemaker" roles than men and we as humans think we are smarter than nature at times and want to "buck" the chemical and physiological system we didn't even set up in the first place. Deny it all we want, but that still doesn't change it at all and that is something we don't have all that much control over unless we do something artificial to enduce it. But I also concede that cultures in general do have and have had an influence on the traditional roles that each gender takes in society.
You sound like a very intelligent individual. And someone genuinely seeking to do and propound what is right. I highly respect you, your response, and your freedom to choose what you believe even if I do not assent to all of it's content. I just wish that people as yourself could reach outside of themselves and seek to grasp what they don't understand. It is quite easy to look at everything at face value, but much harder to grasp concepts beyond our common acumen, intellect, and ingrained beliefs and/or values. I truly believe someday you will achieve this objective and then you will be able to comprehend things beyond the material in a better awareness. Take care and good luck in your search for "truth".
But one thing I haven't quite grasped yet in your responses is where Jesus taught to "kill the heretics" and "murder the unbelievers". In all of my studies of His teachings, I have yet to find those kind of instructions. On the contrary, I find "turn the other cheek". "Go the extra mile". And "even love thine enemies" which was actually said to dispell the inaccurate belief of seeking destruction and ill to individuals or nations with different belief systems that was misundertood at the time. And anyone who has read the Bible with any kind of objectivity, knows that the Bible itself teaches that Jesus is God's Son born in His image and likeness and came to teach all what God is like and thinks. "If you have seen the Son, then you have seen the Father". So the only items I can see someone grasping to support an opposing point of view of Jesus would be people taking Old Testament writings selectively and using them to their advantage. Also remember Jesus also quoted the Old Testament and lived the exact life of a Hebrew doctrinal student of the time. The New Testament hadn't even been wrote yet so Jesus must have been living the life of the Old Testament teachings in the purest sense.
I agree with all of your points. I also would add that I don't seem to absorb as much of the content of the material unless I can sit down with a paper printed book and browse back and forth through the pages. Also, paper facilitates the ability to mark down notes as well as underline items, if I am reading a book for studying and not recreational purposes (although I probably do that less often than some).
I guess none of us have achieved perfection yet, not even the "Godly" characters in the Bible. Let me know when you have and I'll be sure to use your formula in my life.
History is full of violence, religious affiliated or not. Just cruise down to your local library and check out a book on any national or cultural history and you'll find some bloodshed or war somewhere on the pages. As far I have observed we haven't reached a Utopia yet and the Bible, like any other history book, reflects just that, history (and tracks a particular nation and race in general. The nation of Israel to be specific). With your logic we should investigate and possibly ban (or minimally put a warning on) almost all books with historical facts and even a lot of historical fiction since it is possible that our children will be taught or come across a book of that nature at one time or another (the chances are very great, mind you).
But back to what you stated.
You might argue with the #1 through #4 depending on your own personal belief in a God or religious persuation, but the last six seem like a pretty good place to gauge a set of morals by. I have no problem with my child living or being taught by these standards:
#5 Honour thy father and thy mother
#6 Thou shalt not kill
#7 Thou shalt not commit adultery (cheat on my wife)
#8 Thou shalt not steal
#9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour (lie)
#10 Thou shalt not covet..(be so jealous of, that you would consider stealing or killing).
And didn't Jesus Himself teach turn the other cheek and love thy enemies or something like that?
So true!! Knowledge and Intelligence are independent of themselves. Intelligence just determines how productive you will be with that knowledge. Someone with a photographic memory may be able to rattle off many outstanding facts, but may have no idea how to use them to advance any kind of field of study. I think many well educated people forget that fact, and mistake having a vast array of knowledge in a particular field as making them "smart" or "intelligent" and it fosters a kind of false sense of arrogance.
Slashdot Mirror
Having been recently bit by the Facebook privacy issue (or lack of, more appropriately), I had a lot more incentive to try an alternative that would respect my privacy. I recently lost a friend, whom I have known since high school for 27 years, over some comments I made on a thread on Facebook to an entity that I am "friends" with there which he neither knew or cared to know, concerning a rather current political "hot topic". My comments were made and directed to a selected group of people that I would have never shared publicly in person, especially with this friend who vastly differs from opinion with mine and who's feelings I respected (on a side note, IMO, this is a rather trivial matter to throw away what used to be at one time a close friendship and of that duration, but whatever).
Point is, Facebook seems to feel that ANYTHING I post should be of interest to ANYONE who is on my friends list, whether those people know each other or not. A sentiment I don't share. I couldn't care less what comment one of my friends makes on a picture someone posted whom I don't know or never will know or on a thread they commented on to some random person, etc. Isn't that type of behavior considered eavesdropping, spying, or dare I say borderline stalking in the real world? Why does Facebook think it fine to do by default with anyone who is part of their community, I wonder (unless explicitly given permission to do so by said individual)?
Anyway, let's just say that G+ seems very appealing to me right now. Problem is, no one I care about socializing with online is there or posts at all. In fact, this /. article inspired me to check on my G+ profile and what I found was a post from a friend from July of last year. Not very a compelling reason to want me to convert. Facebook, on the other hand, has many posts from family and friends that I personally know who may live far away geographically, and is a convenient way to keep in contact rather than try and play phone tag or email tag, etc. (they post when they have the time and I can read it and respond when I have time and it is more "interactive" as a whole over other mediums).
So for now, Facebook is the winner to me even with the annoying layout and mixture of irrelevant drivel (the new "Trending Articles" placed on the home page Newsfeed just sucks and doesn't add to my enrichment there at all). I am just very much more cognizant to the fact that anything I post there must be something I wouldn't mind the entire world knowing. I will stick with it and take the good with the bad. If I want to say something to a friend privately, I will just send an old fashioned email or perhaps a private message on Facebook, for the time being.
So really...why do we need to go there?
Because we can.Nah, I wasn't generalizing anyone. I was never referring to who wanted to be a houswife by a cognigtive choice using reason, just the fact that nature kind of has the tendencies of certain roles engineered into it to a degree. I don't think there is much more that can be debated with that point. But I do understand your position and the desire to make "your own choice" in the equation and that is well respected in our modern society by many including myself.
I have been reading your commentaries on various posts on this thread and while I don't disagree with the core logic of your content, I do think there is some other factors to consider in this argument.
One of them is two chemicals that the human body produces called estrogen and testosterone (yes, I realize there are others also). Last time I checked, science has dicated that while the various quantities produced in a particular gender can vary, the general rule is the female gender produced more estorgen and the male gender more testosterone. And while we may not like it, those chemicals have an effect on how a human being feels emotionally, reacts to certain situations, and even "thinks" in general. Which leads me to my point. Estrogen can be linked to one having more of a "nuturing" attitude, while testosterone can be linked to having more of an "agressive" and/or "go getter" attitude. And while any gender can adapt and even enjoy the "house" caretaker and childrearing role, nature itself tells us that children and especially babies need more "nuturing" in the formative early years. It is even displyed in the animal kingdom to an extent. More females in the animal species nurture and make nesting provisions then the male in their species (and yes, before you go site and example to the contrary, I do realize that there are certainlly exceptions). So maybe nature itself explains why more women seem to gravitate towards "housemaker" roles than men and we as humans think we are smarter than nature at times and want to "buck" the chemical and physiological system we didn't even set up in the first place. Deny it all we want, but that still doesn't change it at all and that is something we don't have all that much control over unless we do something artificial to enduce it. But I also concede that cultures in general do have and have had an influence on the traditional roles that each gender takes in society.
You sound like a very intelligent individual. And someone genuinely seeking to do and propound what is right. I highly respect you, your response, and your freedom to choose what you believe even if I do not assent to all of it's content. I just wish that people as yourself could reach outside of themselves and seek to grasp what they don't understand. It is quite easy to look at everything at face value, but much harder to grasp concepts beyond our common acumen, intellect, and ingrained beliefs and/or values. I truly believe someday you will achieve this objective and then you will be able to comprehend things beyond the material in a better awareness. Take care and good luck in your search for "truth".
But one thing I haven't quite grasped yet in your responses is where Jesus taught to "kill the heretics" and "murder the unbelievers". In all of my studies of His teachings, I have yet to find those kind of instructions. On the contrary, I find "turn the other cheek". "Go the extra mile". And "even love thine enemies" which was actually said to dispell the inaccurate belief of seeking destruction and ill to individuals or nations with different belief systems that was misundertood at the time. And anyone who has read the Bible with any kind of objectivity, knows that the Bible itself teaches that Jesus is God's Son born in His image and likeness and came to teach all what God is like and thinks. "If you have seen the Son, then you have seen the Father". So the only items I can see someone grasping to support an opposing point of view of Jesus would be people taking Old Testament writings selectively and using them to their advantage. Also remember Jesus also quoted the Old Testament and lived the exact life of a Hebrew doctrinal student of the time. The New Testament hadn't even been wrote yet so Jesus must have been living the life of the Old Testament teachings in the purest sense.
I agree with all of your points. I also would add that I don't seem to absorb as much of the content of the material unless I can sit down with a paper printed book and browse back and forth through the pages. Also, paper facilitates the ability to mark down notes as well as underline items, if I am reading a book for studying and not recreational purposes (although I probably do that less often than some).
I guess none of us have achieved perfection yet, not even the "Godly" characters in the Bible. Let me know when you have and I'll be sure to use your formula in my life.
History is full of violence, religious affiliated or not. Just cruise down to your local library and check out a book on any national or cultural history and you'll find some bloodshed or war somewhere on the pages. As far I have observed we haven't reached a Utopia yet and the Bible, like any other history book, reflects just that, history (and tracks a particular nation and race in general. The nation of Israel to be specific). With your logic we should investigate and possibly ban (or minimally put a warning on) almost all books with historical facts and even a lot of historical fiction since it is possible that our children will be taught or come across a book of that nature at one time or another (the chances are very great, mind you).
But back to what you stated.
You might argue with the #1 through #4 depending on your own personal belief in a God or religious persuation, but the last six seem like a pretty good place to gauge a set of morals by. I have no problem with my child living or being taught by these standards:
#5 Honour thy father and thy mother
#6 Thou shalt not kill
#7 Thou shalt not commit adultery (cheat on my wife)
#8 Thou shalt not steal
#9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour (lie)
#10 Thou shalt not covet..(be so jealous of, that you would consider stealing or killing).
And didn't Jesus Himself teach turn the other cheek and love thy enemies or something like that?
buy' ngop
So true!! Knowledge and Intelligence are independent of themselves. Intelligence just determines how productive you will be with that knowledge. Someone with a photographic memory may be able to rattle off many outstanding facts, but may have no idea how to use them to advance any kind of field of study. I think many well educated people forget that fact, and mistake having a vast array of knowledge in a particular field as making them "smart" or "intelligent" and it fosters a kind of false sense of arrogance.