I actually think that it's exactly this emergence of homosexual behavior in a society that disaproves of homosexuality is what has led to the rise of homosexuality as an identity. Islam and Christianity also both preach against pre-marital sex - theoretically. But the fact of the matter is that the teachings have been downplayed and even when they have not most people in western society don't actually practice their religion. As a result you don't face a lot of societal pressure if you're living with your girlfriend/boyfriend.
Homosexuality, however, is seen as far worse both religiously and culturally. If homosexuality were to arise in 21st century america I don't think we'd have gay people. We'd have people, and some of them would like gay sex. But the fact is that it arose not in the 2000s but in the in 1950s-1970s. During that time period there was much fiercer opposition and I think it was that opposition that bonded together people who liked gay sex and created this idea of a gay person.
Now the Roman legion you mention (which I believe I have heard of) would be another example of this bonding to create an identity around a behavior or preference. So modern gay-ness might not be unique, but I still think that given the fact that historically you tended to either be in a society where it was utterly taboo or where it was utterly accepted prevented the formation of an identity as we have in the West now.
Read the other posts in this thread. I'm NOT saying homosexuality as behavior is new. I don't care whether you're for or against it - the fact is that it's existed for all recorded history. What IS (possibly) different is homosexuality as identity/as culture.
I don't know how to explain it more clearly than that.
The reasoning behind the gov't granting marriage licenses is to provide for families which will raise children. However there is no way to tell which couples are going to be fertile and which ones aren't. Even if you did take a medical test the fact is that infertility can be overcome by science. And I think the tests themselves would be an unwelcome invasion of privacy.
Gov'ts aren't granting licenses because they want each individual couple to turn into a baby factory. You don't have to promise to have kids or adopt when you get married.
It's more subtle than that. Gov'ts are promoting marriage as an institution because that will indirectly - but vitally - affect society. Gov't has no business getting any closer to people's personal lives than that. They have no business monitoring sex, monitoring conception, monitoring fertility, or even asking about any of the above. Granting marriage licenses is a way to foster families without any of those privacy and human rights issues.
Think of it like business licenses. The gov't gives those out on the principle that it will foster free enterprise. But they don't actually require you to start a business with one, or to hire other people, or to be successful. They give the license and you do with it what you want to.
While I appreciate the source material i think you may have failed to really appreciate my point. I was simply pointing out that there is a difference between: A. homosexuality as behavior and B. homosexuality as personal identity
I am of the opinion (albeit I'm no expert and have a lot to learn on the topic) that while A is universal B is a relatively modern pheonomena. Your own sources seem to corroborate this. Examples:
Homosexual sex was widespread in the Middle Ages and there is abundant information on what church writers and secular legislators thought about it.
Sex is the action, and has nothing to do with identity.
those we would now call homosexuals
Meaning that they weren't so-called at the time. Was this because of oppression - or was it because the idea of associating sexual preference with identity and not with just behavior had not yet arisen?
Very clearly there were distinct types of sexual activity in different periods and areas, but these activities do not seem to accord with any particular social organization of homosexuals:
Again - evidence of the action but not of developed identity-awareness. Subcultures may eventually provide evidence that this type of homosexuality did exist, but your articles haven't established that yet.
With the decline of the Roman Empire, and its replacement by various barbarian kingdoms, a general tolerance (with the sole exception of Visigothic Spain) of homosexual acts prevailed.
Again - they key word is acts. This is still the behavior-centric conceptualization.
The subtext throughout all of these articles is simply this: people were having gay sex in the middle ages, and they were having gay sex in the Roman era. That's fine and I think it's historically unarguable. Even the Bible refers to homosexuality going back to Soddom. So that's not in question.
But what these articles all discuss is the behavior. This is not the same thing as the socio-cultural identity, and that's what I believe is a recent development.
I'm not falling into the trap of thinking that people in the middle ages were somehow fundamentally different than we are now. Evolution doesn't work that fast. But modern societies do tend to have distinguishing philosophical trends and I think this is one of them.
Yeah - change a few words and things change. That doesn't really prove your point at all.
The fact is you're talking about a different situation. Even if a hotel is privately held the gov't may rule that it's a public service. This doesn't change the fact that the default position is "privately held organizations can discriminate". There just happen to be some isntances where the gov't has overruled this right (eg for services/products deemed public and for all organizations that receive federal tax dollars).
In general - they can. If Slashdot made a policy saying "no gays allowed" who could stop them?
There are specific instances where this can be overridden. Any organization that takes federal dollars - for instance - can not discriminate. It's illegal to discriminate in housing.
But take a look at the Boy Scouts. They've been fighting for years to keep gay scout masters out - and so far they have won. Similarly there's no law that says that a company has to charge the same price to everyone. They can charge twice as much to woman than to men. It's legal. It would be commercial suicide because of the public outcry - but it's not illegal to discriminate if you're a privately held organization.
The Religious Right has made this a political issue, when in fact it is not even an issue.
This is demonstrably false. The Religious Right is a powerful force but the fact is that a lot of otherwise non-religious, modertate people in this country are not comfortable with the idea of gay-marriage. Take the 2004 presidential election as your evidence. I think it was 17 states that had ammendments to ban same-sex marriage on the ballot. All 17 of those states voted in favor of the ban - frequently by overwhelming majorities. See wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_ the_United_States#2004_New_Jersey for results.
These votes did not come from the Religious Right. Sure - the entire Religious Right voted for the bans, but the Religious Right is not 57% of Oregon. It's not 59% of Michigan. It's not 73% of North Dakota or 62% of Ohio.
Just because you see the issue as black-and-white and obvious doesn't mean that other people do, and it also doesn't mean that it really is. You say that gay-rights don't hurt anybody. I say it depends on the right. The gov't has no right to be surveying people's sex lives, but by the same token marriage - and the family - are the bedrock of human society. In my opinion the gov't has asolutely no business issuing marriage licenses to anyone if marriage is just about love. You don't need the county clerk to give you a license to love. That's stupid. Have you ever realized how ridiculous it sounds to get a license from the gov't if marriage is just about love and commitment and all that jazz?
So why does gov't get involved in the institution of marriage at all? Because marriage is traditionally the basis for a family, and families are the conduits for bringing new lives into the nation and raising and nurturing them to be productive citizens. The gov't - and the public - have a vested interest in protecting the institution of marriage for that reason alone.
So no matter what side of the issue you're on you can't act like there's "no issue" here. You have the combined weight of 1,000's of years of history and practically every major world religion on one side and you have progressives on the other. It IS political and it IS an issue - no matter what you or I think about it.
I'm not sure if it's accurate to say "gay people existed in medieval times". In the past people weren't gay - they just either did or didn't have sex with members of the same sex. It was considered something you did (or didn't do) and not a matter of personal identity. The ancient greeks, for example, would probably not have made sense of the question "are you gay or straight?".
So it's entirely possible that modern homosexuality - far from being as old as the human race - is actually a fairly modern construct. Personally I think that the discinction between "gays" and "straight people" is largely artificial and that sexuality (defined as inclination, not as actual partners) is more of a spectrum than a binary decision. It's for social and political reasons that in recent history the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" have been applied to people and not to behavior or inclination.
I'm tired of people saying that if something is fiction then there is no reason to make it believable.
This isn't that complicated. Science fiction usually asks you to suspend disbelief about a few things - like the possibility of FTL travel or artificial gravity. But while you don't mind (in general) if a sci-fi show has artificial gravity it does get ridiculous when an otherwise true-to-science show (eg no sound in space, realistic physics, etc.) suddenly has damaged ships slow to a halt in a vacumm (ala "Wing Commander" - the worst movie ever made EVAR).
If you're just going to have a fantasy movie with lasers (like Star Wars) that's one thing. But sci-fi with a grittier edge in the vein of Clarke should stay true to it's roots.
It comes to this: it's poor form to have characters act so uncharicteristically that they violate the sense of reality in the film and it's equally poor form to have physical objects act so oddly that they violate the sense of reality in the film. If realistic physics (or character development, for that matter) aren't part of that sense of reality than it doesn't matter if you toss them to the wind. But if they are - then you should stick to it.
I still want to know, just out of curiosity, what your definition of a bigot is and why you're convinced I fit into it. I won't bother protesting that I'm not until I know what you mean by it.
Also, if you would be so kind, go ahead and let me know whether or not there is any way I could disagree with you and still not be a bigot. If you think that's giving me an easy way out or something just hold that close to your chest for now and think about it.
So... after an extremely long debate where I get called a bigot for essentially saying you need to prove things in an argument it comes down to "you were right - I was just messing with you"?
In a way I'm glad. I got into a serious discussion with Spec about whether or not you could possibly be serious in your posts. We were both under the conclusion that no one could possibly be that bad of an arguer and therefore something weird was going on.
The difference between you and I seems to be that while you couldn't resist responding to goad me on as a joke or something I was actually earnest in what I was arguing about.
I have no problem arguing with people, disagreeing with people, and respecting those very same people as long as we can all be honest about what we think and what we can back up with proof. If you just want to mess with people I can't really complain - in a way it's actually hilarious. But at the same time if you really care about the issue than why would you just turn it into a ridiculous joke? I think - as you noticed from the comments of other readers - that you simply ended up as standing for a great example of someone who's liberal being just as close-minded and dogmatic as the worst right-wing christian fundamentalist. It's convenient for my own philosophy to have you stand in like that, but why would you want to torpedo your own position on a major social issue like this? If we were debating like Star Wars vs. Star Trek or Picard vs. Kirk I would understand it - but on serious social issues? In a way you've only raised more questions than you've answered.
If you have an IQ of 200 and SAT, etc scores in the 90th percentile there's something seriously wrong with your test taking abilities considering any IQ above 150 puts you above the 99.96 percentile for IQ. But then, scores vary pretty widely depending on which testing methodology you use. By contrast I'm pretty sure my IQ isn't nearly that high and I've scored consistently in the 99th percentile since I took my first standardized tests in elementary school.
I have no interest in SWG - pre or post transition. If I had to pick I'd say I'm slightly more interested in a faster-paced FPS-style game than in the older RPG style game (I love Planetside). But at the same time, I don't think what SOE did was right or good. Even if it becomes a game more like one I'd want to play the fact that SOE is so ready to give the shaft to players that have dedicated years of their lives (laying aside whatever that says about their priorities) not only playing their game but paying money for it bodes ill for gamers no matter what your gaming preferences.
Just imagine if the situation was reversed and Planetside all of a sudden had dozens of "careers" like "supply clerk" and "truck driver" and the FPS combat was changed to some kind of RPG or even turn-based blend. The fact is that they are just different types of games. You (and I) may like FPS games, but that's just a matter of taste.
Suddenly destroying an old game and rendering it utterly useless for a large section of a fan base (by replacing it with a new game they didn't sign up for) is not a question of taste. It's a question of treating your cutomers right, of being honest with people, of integrity, and when it comes down to it a question of business sense. In all of these ways SOEs "upgrade" to SWG should be repugnant not just to the old vets of that game but to gamers everywhere who expect game companies to act with responsibility and honesty towards they're paying cutomers.
I'm not saying that SOE has a legal obligation to only make upgrades that are acceptable to the game. Customers pay for the game each month, and that means that SOE has the right to make any changes they want and the cutomers have no recourse (except they should be given money back for months they no longer wish to use). But because something is legal doesn't make it ethical - or smart. And companies should not be trying to get by some minimum standard of ethics with their customers - they should be seeking to rise to the highest level of customer satisfaction.
It comes down to this. If you get online to play Planetside tonight and find out that it has been turned into an RTS - how happy will you be? If you would not happy with that you shouldn't be happy with what happened to SWG either.
Oy - I'd like to get back into planetside (I played a lot a couple years back and eventually got to like BR 15). I started playing again with this free month they gave me - along with my old character back with all my xp.
Trouble is I need to find a really organized outfit. I get tired of running around on my own never accomplishing anything.
Any chacne you play NC on Emerald (or know someone that does) and have a tight guild with teamspeak required? 'Cause I'd be interested if you do.
What's interesting to me is this theme of disabled people being able to enjoy a game that didn't rely on or require at all hair-trigger reflexes. I'm really curious to know how much of this is hype and how many disabled people were really a part of this.
You are so right. As I said in an earlier post - I'm addicted to replying. I keep thinking he might actually have a good point and just not be communicating it very well, but I guess I was just waiting for Godot on this one.
As Mal says about God in Serenity "that's a long time waitin' for a train doesn't come". Same thing goes for some people's arguments and logic.
I said that if all you wanted to say was that the APA considers homosexuality not to be a problem, that I had no beef with that. It's true. This position of mine is supported in the following quotes from previous posts (of mine, in this thread).
According to you: That IS all I wanted to say
Yet these are some additional claims that you have made in this thread
It's the truth. (in direct reference to: "I no more chose to be straight than a gay person chose to be gay"
It's well established and well known that homosexuals are born that way. I'm not making any new claims here, just pointing out that the claims that homosexuals choose to be gay are completely contrary to all the legitimate research.
So you're present claim that all you ever wanted to prove is that the APA supports the determinst view of sexuality is demonstrably false. You are either stupid or lying. You think that you are doing something to advance your cause or "educate" the Slashdot readership. You are in fact doing nothing but demonstrating again and again your own utter unwillingness - or inability - to be earnest and open about what you are actually trying to say.
So I return to the points which I have previously made: the APA supports you stance on homosexuality: so what? You are under the utterly naive opinion that you can come here, relay some opinions of your wife and/or the APA and act as though you've settled a debate. You are not sufficiently well schooled in basic logic to even grasp the problems with your argument. You fail to see that even IF you prove what the APA thinks, you actually need to prove why we should listen to them. You may bow down and worhsip the APA or any other "scientific" organization as you see fit. I, however, am no more likely to subjugate my reason and free will to some scholarly organization than I am to grovel at the feet of some religious leader who does the thinking for me (if there's any antt-Mormons in the audience that want to challenge me on this, I'll take it up with you later).
As I've already stated: consensus got us the Titanic. Consensus got us eugenics and the concentration camps. Consensus branded Galileo a heretic. Consensus scoffed at Columbus. This is what you rest your argument on - blind faith in the consensus of psychologists.
You've so far demonstrated absolutely no conversence with ANY of the science that you "cite". You've not given us one iota or shred of evidence to believe your position. All you've done is snivel that the APA thinks it's this way - and therefore (since the APA is God) it must be so. You've been dishonest, you've resorted to ad hominem attacks, you've failed to understand the basic principles of the scientific method that are leading practically everyone who's responded to you in these threads to ridicule you. Sure - some are religious zealots with their own homophobic agenda, but others like myself simply want to promote honest and open discussion. This honest and open discussion is something that simply can not exist in the context of your utterly pathetic appeal to authority.
The sad fact of the matter is that while you may bask in the glory of being aligned with the side you conceive to have authority you would be somewhat less happy if you were to find yourself on the receiving end of such a dogmatic approach to social policy. You are no better than an Islamic fundamentalist - happy to assert your agenda based solely on authority with no appeal to logic, reason, or evidence.
This conversation is clearly over. There's no way to conduct a debate with someone that can't even keep track of what they are debating - let alone fathom the arguments against it.
I think we're in agreement on all these issues. The negatives that you point out are not going to go away in my opinion - and explain why MS will continue to have substantial market share for the forseeable future. People that use the more advanced features of MS Access, Excel, and Outlook not going to be able to find alternatives.
But at the same time there are a ton of small businesses that don't use Access at all (or very, very little) and that have no idea what kinds of things you can do with Outlook and the Exchange server and for whom Calc will work just as well as Excel. Those are the guys that could benefit from Linux right now, but aren't adopting because they lack the help of specialists and have an aversion to untested software solutions.
My original point wasn't that homosexuality was a dysfunction (although I find that to be a supportable point) but that adoption is not procreation.
I think there is something to be learned from the fact that humans are the most sexualized species. This means, for example, that we are capable of copulating at any time rather than having to be "in heat" as well as biological considerations. So while it is certainly overly simplistic to say that just because homosexuality cuts off the avenue towards procreation it must be dysfunction I think a better argument can be made that homosexuality does cut against certain psychological ramifications of human biological sexuality.
It's more than I really want to get into now. I would recommend looking into the writings of Dr. Leon Kass (on the President's Council for Bioethics). I know that his articles on human cloning have some fascinating insights into the nature of human sexuality that I found very compelling.
Your original "fact" was that the scientific consensus was that homosexuality was genetically determined. Your revised version is that the APA's official position is that homosexuality is not a choice. The two are not equivalent. It's common knowledge that the APA changed it's position from viewing homosexuality as a psychological dysfunction to a normal state of mind (although it would have been common courtesy for you to have linked to evidence of this rather than just saying it was a "fact" that you didn't have to prove). If that's all you want to say: I have no beef with it.
However, I still argue that you have no evidence to substantiate the claim that most scientists consider homosexuality to be genetic. The fact that identical twins can have one hetero and one homosexual twin seems to demonstrate that this is false. Obviously there is some genetic input - the question is how much.
Since you are more interested in being "right" than in either having a good discussion or being honest (eg substituting one claim for another while pretending they are the same) there's really just not much left to discuss.
I like your analysis but I think you're leaving a few things out. I think there is a possibility for wholesale migration from windows to linux in the near future because of Windows Visata and Office 12.
Large corporations are probably not likely to want to give up their in-pace infrastructure. But individual users (non-techie/gamers) and small/medium businesses have a much less-vested interest in maintaining windows. And the looming hardware requirements of Vista are ridiculous. Of course no one HAS to move to Vista on day one (nor should they!) But the bad press is out there and it's going to highlight the fact that Windows is resource hog and going with Windows is like stepping on a hardware treadmill. Similarly, the fact that it will take more training to get employees up to speed on Office 12 than it would to get them up to speed on OpenOffice (starting with Office 10 or 11) is going to further highlight the escalating costs of a Windows environment.
What needs to happen, however, is that there need to be service companies that will outsource the IT work for small/med businesses and even individuals to facilitate the change. It's like the old adage "it takes money to make money". In this case it takes money (specialists) to save money (taking advantage of linux/open source/thin client efficiencies). IF those types of businesses spring up, then there's the potential to see a sudden increase in linux penetration at the bottom of the pyramid - home users and small/med businesses. This spike in linux penetration will, in my opinion, prove sufficient to start a self-sustaining, wide-spread adoption of linux.
Again, I don't see this as an end to MS. It's not so much a question of linux vs. MS, it's a question of the old distributed PC version vs. web and server based computing. It just so happens that as people move to web and server based computing they incremental cost to them of ALSO moving to linux will be relatively low compared to the incremental benefit of linux/OS in addition to server-based computing.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually think that it's exactly this emergence of homosexual behavior in a society that disaproves of homosexuality is what has led to the rise of homosexuality as an identity. Islam and Christianity also both preach against pre-marital sex - theoretically. But the fact of the matter is that the teachings have been downplayed and even when they have not most people in western society don't actually practice their religion. As a result you don't face a lot of societal pressure if you're living with your girlfriend/boyfriend.
Homosexuality, however, is seen as far worse both religiously and culturally. If homosexuality were to arise in 21st century america I don't think we'd have gay people. We'd have people, and some of them would like gay sex. But the fact is that it arose not in the 2000s but in the in 1950s-1970s. During that time period there was much fiercer opposition and I think it was that opposition that bonded together people who liked gay sex and created this idea of a gay person.
Now the Roman legion you mention (which I believe I have heard of) would be another example of this bonding to create an identity around a behavior or preference. So modern gay-ness might not be unique, but I still think that given the fact that historically you tended to either be in a society where it was utterly taboo or where it was utterly accepted prevented the formation of an identity as we have in the West now.
So it's not unique - but it is rare.
-stormin
*sigh*
Read the other posts in this thread. I'm NOT saying homosexuality as behavior is new. I don't care whether you're for or against it - the fact is that it's existed for all recorded history. What IS (possibly) different is homosexuality as identity/as culture.
I don't know how to explain it more clearly than that.
-stormin
The reasoning behind the gov't granting marriage licenses is to provide for families which will raise children. However there is no way to tell which couples are going to be fertile and which ones aren't. Even if you did take a medical test the fact is that infertility can be overcome by science. And I think the tests themselves would be an unwelcome invasion of privacy.
Gov'ts aren't granting licenses because they want each individual couple to turn into a baby factory. You don't have to promise to have kids or adopt when you get married.
It's more subtle than that. Gov'ts are promoting marriage as an institution because that will indirectly - but vitally - affect society. Gov't has no business getting any closer to people's personal lives than that. They have no business monitoring sex, monitoring conception, monitoring fertility, or even asking about any of the above. Granting marriage licenses is a way to foster families without any of those privacy and human rights issues.
Think of it like business licenses. The gov't gives those out on the principle that it will foster free enterprise. But they don't actually require you to start a business with one, or to hire other people, or to be successful. They give the license and you do with it what you want to.
-stormin
While I appreciate the source material i think you may have failed to really appreciate my point. I was simply pointing out that there is a difference between:
A. homosexuality as behavior
and
B. homosexuality as personal identity
I am of the opinion (albeit I'm no expert and have a lot to learn on the topic) that while A is universal B is a relatively modern pheonomena. Your own sources seem to corroborate this. Examples:
Homosexual sex was widespread in the Middle Ages and there is abundant information on what church writers and secular legislators thought about it.
Sex is the action, and has nothing to do with identity.
those we would now call homosexuals
Meaning that they weren't so-called at the time. Was this because of oppression - or was it because the idea of associating sexual preference with identity and not with just behavior had not yet arisen?
Very clearly there were distinct types of sexual activity in different periods and areas, but these activities do not seem to accord with any particular social organization of homosexuals:
Again - evidence of the action but not of developed identity-awareness. Subcultures may eventually provide evidence that this type of homosexuality did exist, but your articles haven't established that yet.
With the decline of the Roman Empire, and its replacement by various barbarian kingdoms, a general tolerance (with the sole exception of Visigothic Spain) of homosexual acts prevailed.
Again - they key word is acts. This is still the behavior-centric conceptualization.
The subtext throughout all of these articles is simply this: people were having gay sex in the middle ages, and they were having gay sex in the Roman era. That's fine and I think it's historically unarguable. Even the Bible refers to homosexuality going back to Soddom. So that's not in question.
But what these articles all discuss is the behavior. This is not the same thing as the socio-cultural identity, and that's what I believe is a recent development.
I'm not falling into the trap of thinking that people in the middle ages were somehow fundamentally different than we are now. Evolution doesn't work that fast. But modern societies do tend to have distinguishing philosophical trends and I think this is one of them.
-stormin
Yeah - change a few words and things change. That doesn't really prove your point at all.
The fact is you're talking about a different situation. Even if a hotel is privately held the gov't may rule that it's a public service. This doesn't change the fact that the default position is "privately held organizations can discriminate". There just happen to be some isntances where the gov't has overruled this right (eg for services/products deemed public and for all organizations that receive federal tax dollars).
-stormin
In general - they can. If Slashdot made a policy saying "no gays allowed" who could stop them?
There are specific instances where this can be overridden. Any organization that takes federal dollars - for instance - can not discriminate. It's illegal to discriminate in housing.
But take a look at the Boy Scouts. They've been fighting for years to keep gay scout masters out - and so far they have won. Similarly there's no law that says that a company has to charge the same price to everyone. They can charge twice as much to woman than to men. It's legal. It would be commercial suicide because of the public outcry - but it's not illegal to discriminate if you're a privately held organization.
-stormin
The Religious Right has made this a political issue, when in fact it is not even an issue.
_ the_United_States#2004_New_Jersey for results.
This is demonstrably false. The Religious Right is a powerful force but the fact is that a lot of otherwise non-religious, modertate people in this country are not comfortable with the idea of gay-marriage. Take the 2004 presidential election as your evidence. I think it was 17 states that had ammendments to ban same-sex marriage on the ballot. All 17 of those states voted in favor of the ban - frequently by overwhelming majorities. See wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in
These votes did not come from the Religious Right. Sure - the entire Religious Right voted for the bans, but the Religious Right is not 57% of Oregon. It's not 59% of Michigan. It's not 73% of North Dakota or 62% of Ohio.
Just because you see the issue as black-and-white and obvious doesn't mean that other people do, and it also doesn't mean that it really is. You say that gay-rights don't hurt anybody. I say it depends on the right. The gov't has no right to be surveying people's sex lives, but by the same token marriage - and the family - are the bedrock of human society. In my opinion the gov't has asolutely no business issuing marriage licenses to anyone if marriage is just about love. You don't need the county clerk to give you a license to love. That's stupid. Have you ever realized how ridiculous it sounds to get a license from the gov't if marriage is just about love and commitment and all that jazz?
So why does gov't get involved in the institution of marriage at all? Because marriage is traditionally the basis for a family, and families are the conduits for bringing new lives into the nation and raising and nurturing them to be productive citizens. The gov't - and the public - have a vested interest in protecting the institution of marriage for that reason alone.
So no matter what side of the issue you're on you can't act like there's "no issue" here. You have the combined weight of 1,000's of years of history and practically every major world religion on one side and you have progressives on the other. It IS political and it IS an issue - no matter what you or I think about it.
-stormin
If they can nerf your character's dexterity and strength, what makes you think they can't nerf your... whatever you call it.
I think I speak for us all when I say the word you're looking for is MOJO.
-stormin
(don't nerf my mojo!)
I'm not sure if it's accurate to say "gay people existed in medieval times".
In the past people weren't gay - they just either did or didn't have sex with members of the same sex. It was considered something you did (or didn't do) and not a matter of personal identity. The ancient greeks, for example, would probably not have made sense of the question "are you gay or straight?".
So it's entirely possible that modern homosexuality - far from being as old as the human race - is actually a fairly modern construct. Personally I think that the discinction between "gays" and "straight people" is largely artificial and that sexuality (defined as inclination, not as actual partners) is more of a spectrum than a binary decision. It's for social and political reasons that in recent history the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" have been applied to people and not to behavior or inclination.
Anyone know of anything additional about this?
-stormin
I'm tired of people saying that if something is fiction then there is no reason to make it believable.
This isn't that complicated. Science fiction usually asks you to suspend disbelief about a few things - like the possibility of FTL travel or artificial gravity. But while you don't mind (in general) if a sci-fi show has artificial gravity it does get ridiculous when an otherwise true-to-science show (eg no sound in space, realistic physics, etc.) suddenly has damaged ships slow to a halt in a vacumm (ala "Wing Commander" - the worst movie ever made EVAR).
If you're just going to have a fantasy movie with lasers (like Star Wars) that's one thing. But sci-fi with a grittier edge in the vein of Clarke should stay true to it's roots.
It comes to this: it's poor form to have characters act so uncharicteristically that they violate the sense of reality in the film and it's equally poor form to have physical objects act so oddly that they violate the sense of reality in the film. If realistic physics (or character development, for that matter) aren't part of that sense of reality than it doesn't matter if you toss them to the wind. But if they are - then you should stick to it.
-stormin
I still want to know, just out of curiosity, what your definition of a bigot is and why you're convinced I fit into it. I won't bother protesting that I'm not until I know what you mean by it.
Also, if you would be so kind, go ahead and let me know whether or not there is any way I could disagree with you and still not be a bigot. If you think that's giving me an easy way out or something just hold that close to your chest for now and think about it.
-stormin
So... after an extremely long debate where I get called a bigot for essentially saying you need to prove things in an argument it comes down to "you were right - I was just messing with you"?
In a way I'm glad. I got into a serious discussion with Spec about whether or not you could possibly be serious in your posts. We were both under the conclusion that no one could possibly be that bad of an arguer and therefore something weird was going on.
The difference between you and I seems to be that while you couldn't resist responding to goad me on as a joke or something I was actually earnest in what I was arguing about.
I have no problem arguing with people, disagreeing with people, and respecting those very same people as long as we can all be honest about what we think and what we can back up with proof. If you just want to mess with people I can't really complain - in a way it's actually hilarious. But at the same time if you really care about the issue than why would you just turn it into a ridiculous joke? I think - as you noticed from the comments of other readers - that you simply ended up as standing for a great example of someone who's liberal being just as close-minded and dogmatic as the worst right-wing christian fundamentalist. It's convenient for my own philosophy to have you stand in like that, but why would you want to torpedo your own position on a major social issue like this? If we were debating like Star Wars vs. Star Trek or Picard vs. Kirk I would understand it - but on serious social issues? In a way you've only raised more questions than you've answered.
Eh... whatever.
Besides, I don't speak werewolf.
-stormin
If you have an IQ of 200 and SAT, etc scores in the 90th percentile there's something seriously wrong with your test taking abilities considering any IQ above 150 puts you above the 99.96 percentile for IQ. But then, scores vary pretty widely depending on which testing methodology you use. By contrast I'm pretty sure my IQ isn't nearly that high and I've scored consistently in the 99th percentile since I took my first standardized tests in elementary school.
But then - you probably knew that.
Thanks, that sounds good. I'll look you up next time I'm online (maybe tonight).
-stormin
I have no interest in SWG - pre or post transition. If I had to pick I'd say I'm slightly more interested in a faster-paced FPS-style game than in the older RPG style game (I love Planetside). But at the same time, I don't think what SOE did was right or good. Even if it becomes a game more like one I'd want to play the fact that SOE is so ready to give the shaft to players that have dedicated years of their lives (laying aside whatever that says about their priorities) not only playing their game but paying money for it bodes ill for gamers no matter what your gaming preferences.
Just imagine if the situation was reversed and Planetside all of a sudden had dozens of "careers" like "supply clerk" and "truck driver" and the FPS combat was changed to some kind of RPG or even turn-based blend. The fact is that they are just different types of games. You (and I) may like FPS games, but that's just a matter of taste.
Suddenly destroying an old game and rendering it utterly useless for a large section of a fan base (by replacing it with a new game they didn't sign up for) is not a question of taste. It's a question of treating your cutomers right, of being honest with people, of integrity, and when it comes down to it a question of business sense. In all of these ways SOEs "upgrade" to SWG should be repugnant not just to the old vets of that game but to gamers everywhere who expect game companies to act with responsibility and honesty towards they're paying cutomers.
I'm not saying that SOE has a legal obligation to only make upgrades that are acceptable to the game. Customers pay for the game each month, and that means that SOE has the right to make any changes they want and the cutomers have no recourse (except they should be given money back for months they no longer wish to use). But because something is legal doesn't make it ethical - or smart. And companies should not be trying to get by some minimum standard of ethics with their customers - they should be seeking to rise to the highest level of customer satisfaction.
It comes down to this. If you get online to play Planetside tonight and find out that it has been turned into an RTS - how happy will you be? If you would not happy with that you shouldn't be happy with what happened to SWG either.
-stormin
Oy - I'd like to get back into planetside (I played a lot a couple years back and eventually got to like BR 15). I started playing again with this free month they gave me - along with my old character back with all my xp.
Trouble is I need to find a really organized outfit. I get tired of running around on my own never accomplishing anything.
Any chacne you play NC on Emerald (or know someone that does) and have a tight guild with teamspeak required? 'Cause I'd be interested if you do.
-stormin
What's interesting to me is this theme of disabled people being able to enjoy a game that didn't rely on or require at all hair-trigger reflexes. I'm really curious to know how much of this is hype and how many disabled people were really a part of this.
-stormin
Dead on. Please mod up.
You are so right. As I said in an earlier post - I'm addicted to replying. I keep thinking he might actually have a good point and just not be communicating it very well, but I guess I was just waiting for Godot on this one.
As Mal says about God in Serenity "that's a long time waitin' for a train doesn't come". Same thing goes for some people's arguments and logic.
-stormin
I said that if all you wanted to say was that the APA considers homosexuality not to be a problem, that I had no beef with that. It's true. This position of mine is supported in the following quotes from previous posts (of mine, in this thread).
According to you: That IS all I wanted to say
Yet these are some additional claims that you have made in this thread
It's the truth. (in direct reference to: "I no more chose to be straight than a gay person chose to be gay"
It's well established and well known that homosexuals are born that way. I'm not making any new claims here, just pointing out that the claims that homosexuals choose to be gay are completely contrary to all the legitimate research.
So you're present claim that all you ever wanted to prove is that the APA supports the determinst view of sexuality is demonstrably false. You are either stupid or lying. You think that you are doing something to advance your cause or "educate" the Slashdot readership. You are in fact doing nothing but demonstrating again and again your own utter unwillingness - or inability - to be earnest and open about what you are actually trying to say.
So I return to the points which I have previously made: the APA supports you stance on homosexuality: so what? You are under the utterly naive opinion that you can come here, relay some opinions of your wife and/or the APA and act as though you've settled a debate. You are not sufficiently well schooled in basic logic to even grasp the problems with your argument. You fail to see that even IF you prove what the APA thinks, you actually need to prove why we should listen to them. You may bow down and worhsip the APA or any other "scientific" organization as you see fit. I, however, am no more likely to subjugate my reason and free will to some scholarly organization than I am to grovel at the feet of some religious leader who does the thinking for me (if there's any antt-Mormons in the audience that want to challenge me on this, I'll take it up with you later).
As I've already stated: consensus got us the Titanic. Consensus got us eugenics and the concentration camps. Consensus branded Galileo a heretic. Consensus scoffed at Columbus. This is what you rest your argument on - blind faith in the consensus of psychologists.
You've so far demonstrated absolutely no conversence with ANY of the science that you "cite". You've not given us one iota or shred of evidence to believe your position. All you've done is snivel that the APA thinks it's this way - and therefore (since the APA is God) it must be so. You've been dishonest, you've resorted to ad hominem attacks, you've failed to understand the basic principles of the scientific method that are leading practically everyone who's responded to you in these threads to ridicule you. Sure - some are religious zealots with their own homophobic agenda, but others like myself simply want to promote honest and open discussion. This honest and open discussion is something that simply can not exist in the context of your utterly pathetic appeal to authority.
The sad fact of the matter is that while you may bask in the glory of being aligned with the side you conceive to have authority you would be somewhat less happy if you were to find yourself on the receiving end of such a dogmatic approach to social policy. You are no better than an Islamic fundamentalist - happy to assert your agenda based solely on authority with no appeal to logic, reason, or evidence.
This conversation is clearly over. There's no way to conduct a debate with someone that can't even keep track of what they are debating - let alone fathom the arguments against it.
-stormin
I think we're in agreement on all these issues. The negatives that you point out are not going to go away in my opinion - and explain why MS will continue to have substantial market share for the forseeable future. People that use the more advanced features of MS Access, Excel, and Outlook not going to be able to find alternatives.
But at the same time there are a ton of small businesses that don't use Access at all (or very, very little) and that have no idea what kinds of things you can do with Outlook and the Exchange server and for whom Calc will work just as well as Excel. Those are the guys that could benefit from Linux right now, but aren't adopting because they lack the help of specialists and have an aversion to untested software solutions.
-stormin
My original point wasn't that homosexuality was a dysfunction (although I find that to be a supportable point) but that adoption is not procreation.
I think there is something to be learned from the fact that humans are the most sexualized species. This means, for example, that we are capable of copulating at any time rather than having to be "in heat" as well as biological considerations. So while it is certainly overly simplistic to say that just because homosexuality cuts off the avenue towards procreation it must be dysfunction I think a better argument can be made that homosexuality does cut against certain psychological ramifications of human biological sexuality.
It's more than I really want to get into now. I would recommend looking into the writings of Dr. Leon Kass (on the President's Council for Bioethics). I know that his articles on human cloning have some fascinating insights into the nature of human sexuality that I found very compelling.
Got to run.
-stormin
Your original "fact" was that the scientific consensus was that homosexuality was genetically determined. Your revised version is that the APA's official position is that homosexuality is not a choice. The two are not equivalent. It's common knowledge that the APA changed it's position from viewing homosexuality as a psychological dysfunction to a normal state of mind (although it would have been common courtesy for you to have linked to evidence of this rather than just saying it was a "fact" that you didn't have to prove). If that's all you want to say: I have no beef with it.
However, I still argue that you have no evidence to substantiate the claim that most scientists consider homosexuality to be genetic. The fact that identical twins can have one hetero and one homosexual twin seems to demonstrate that this is false. Obviously there is some genetic input - the question is how much.
Since you are more interested in being "right" than in either having a good discussion or being honest (eg substituting one claim for another while pretending they are the same) there's really just not much left to discuss.
-stormin
I like your analysis but I think you're leaving a few things out. I think there is a possibility for wholesale migration from windows to linux in the near future because of Windows Visata and Office 12.
Large corporations are probably not likely to want to give up their in-pace infrastructure. But individual users (non-techie/gamers) and small/medium businesses have a much less-vested interest in maintaining windows. And the looming hardware requirements of Vista are ridiculous. Of course no one HAS to move to Vista on day one (nor should they!) But the bad press is out there and it's going to highlight the fact that Windows is resource hog and going with Windows is like stepping on a hardware treadmill. Similarly, the fact that it will take more training to get employees up to speed on Office 12 than it would to get them up to speed on OpenOffice (starting with Office 10 or 11) is going to further highlight the escalating costs of a Windows environment.
What needs to happen, however, is that there need to be service companies that will outsource the IT work for small/med businesses and even individuals to facilitate the change. It's like the old adage "it takes money to make money". In this case it takes money (specialists) to save money (taking advantage of linux/open source/thin client efficiencies). IF those types of businesses spring up, then there's the potential to see a sudden increase in linux penetration at the bottom of the pyramid - home users and small/med businesses. This spike in linux penetration will, in my opinion, prove sufficient to start a self-sustaining, wide-spread adoption of linux.
Again, I don't see this as an end to MS. It's not so much a question of linux vs. MS, it's a question of the old distributed PC version vs. web and server based computing. It just so happens that as people move to web and server based computing they incremental cost to them of ALSO moving to linux will be relatively low compared to the incremental benefit of linux/OS in addition to server-based computing.
-stormin
I wholeheartedly agree. Goontoo is kind of cool. On the other hand, Goobuntu is a little better than some of the possible alternatives:
GooHat
GooSE
Goondriva
Alright, fine. Goondriva is actually also pretty cool (not that Mandriva would appreciate a free alternative since they're trying to sell theirs now).
-stormin