well as I pointed out, when it's a royal family the rules change rather drastically. However, the people on livejournal most likely aren't royalty or recently related to royalty and I doubt they're discussing the implications of incest within royal families anyhow. My point is that they are talking about incest more sexually than marriage related.
As a student of Anthropology I can tell you that all cultures have an incest taboo for parent/child relations as well as brother/sister. The only situation in which brother/sister marriage is for marriages in the royal family to keep the bloodline pure. As you mentioned, this is practiced in Egypt and also in Hawaii. Cousin marriages are much more commonplace in other cultures and usually occur when they can provide benefits for the economic and social wellbeing of kin groups.
This isn't a question of morality being relevant or not, it's a question of ignorance of culture. There are reasons why one marries a certain person and in other countries it usually isn't for love, it's for the group as a whole. It is likely that much of what is being discussed (by western peoples, who I am assuming are in the majority) on Livejournal is not an anthropological discussion or has any similarity to the accepted practices of incest in other cultures. Therefore, it's irrelevant to discuss the marriage practices of other cultures in this context.
I doubt it, my mom drives a prius and it gets better mileage just by being a hybrid. Also all of the hybrid technology does NOT invalidate intelligent technologies. In the Prius for instance there is a mechanism which uses breaking to restore power to the battery so that can be easily put together with some other system that has to do with saving mileage by simply providing information to the driver.
I don't like his point that it's just as good because then I can simply just take that and say. What if Hybrid technology was mixed with "intelligent car" technology. It would only further increase a car's efficiency. Just because one has any kind of technology that helps them doesn't mean that they should rely wholly on that. I agree with the other posters about showing the MPG. If the MPG was showed it would allow the driver to test out different gas saving ideas and all of these things put together will raise fuel efficiency. So when I hear people saying that "well you shouldn't use this because this is better" but they are two different things that can be used together. I say why not use both?
You can't even use gold or items in the real world anyhow so it's ridiculous to tax it. That's like taxing you for your monopoly money earnings. It's especially silly because the meaning of the game economy could change at any moment for almost no reason. However, it could be good if they start taxing for real money for in-game items/gold transfers because it would make people think twice about doing them and maybe it would lower the amount of gold selling/buying and help fix in-game economies.
"Unfortunately, many states give quite a bit of power in determining how elections are run to a Secretary of State that is elected based on party affiliation, which undermines the system significantly."
speaking of this, don't you think it's weird that Ohio's election director Kenneth Blackwell was running for governor right around this time?
It seems as though every single time someone makes some kind of defensive fortification (be it stone walls or coding), someone finds a way around it. Just because things are DRM'ed doesn't mean they can't be un-DRMed unless they are made utterly flawed. People built huge stone walls, other people built cannons and the stone walls didn't stand a chance. You don't see too many castles in use as military bases these days.
I don't buy that whole "If you act like a baby, I'm going to treat you like a baby" stuff. It doesn't work in a court of law to claim ignorance and it isn't brought into account if you live in your parents basement, only the fact that you're 35 when you committed the crime. If a parent treats their child as infantile it does not help that child to grow up whatsoever. The only thing it does is spites. If society is to move on then trust must be established.
the same could be said of racing games. But Axe commercials in Ghost Recon? The unintended marketing may make me think the guns in that game are cool (whether I can buy them or not.) same with the helicopters. However, I don't buy a game for someone to obviously try and ensnare me in a web of consumerism that I didn't pay for.
I feel like people are too quick to say anything when it comes to energy.
I see a continuous line of, OH! This is the answer!
I think that we should continue trying to make all sources of energy more efficient.
More efficiency from fossil fuels, hydrogen, solar cells, wind etc etc
I believe it's irresponsible to attempt and rely on any source of energy, only to try
and move the least clean ones to the peripheral of our energy needs if it can be done.
We don't have to have giant solar farms to benefit from solar cells. we can start to
lower the power requirements of things by adding little power boosts here and there.
This could include things like more solar water heaters (I'd like one here in America,
I hear they're available elsewhere.)
Overall, I think that we should continue to advance all of the technologies that we have
available and we will start to see more and more energy savings and can use that as a
springboard to greater advances in low-energy hydrogen production or fusion.
one thing I would like to see is that every single employee not be held to the same exact work standards. this does not mean effort, or work ethic, but skill and talent. When I worked at Best Buy I was a tireless stocker and I constantly would find things for customers but I never bothered to offer every single person the best buy card and so therefore some managers didn't like me very much. Maybe one revolution from the bottom-up is that the employees could refuse to sell stupid meaningless things to customers and try to sell them things that one would buy for one's self in that situation.
Living in Ohio (at least in Cleveland) I can say that we have a huge amount of cloudy, rainy days so I wonder how they hope to ever get anything off the ground.
I don't believe he was saying all moral laws, he was saying that we have learned as a society over time.
I don't agree with your idea that biblical laws apply today (from a religious perspective.) We live in a drastically different time than the people for whom the laws were written. Just because there are many people today who say that those laws should be followed as if we lived in Israel in 1400BC doesn't mean that's what is true. The population of earth is exponentially higher than it was thousands of years ago and the speed of travel and information is the same.
We obviously live in a more complex society with the need for different general rules. The other problem that people have is that they assume that religious laws should have anything to do with the government. If the bible calls for the death penalty for something, then it is allowing a group of people (however large) to use that as an effective form of punishment. It doesn't mean that God will hold everyone responsible when someone doesn't take vengeance in his name.
"More regrettable, was the loss of how to read all that."
yes it is regrettable when languages are lost whether we can decipher them or not, but I believe the Mayan language has at least been partially deciphered.
religion and faith are not the same thing. If you accept any premise such as axioms in math or scientific data, you have to believe that it has some truth to it. As you said, you don't just believe that Napoleon is that guy on the street.
You seem to have some kind of hatred going against religion which is based on a few people you don't like and so you make broad generalizations. Faith is required in science to believe that what you are seeing is real. That's simplifying it but that is the basic. If you read my post then you would see I said that it could not be proved that God is exists. Certitude is the fusion of faith and reason which leads you to a belief system. Yours is that "Jeebus and religion suck, LOL!" Certainly people have right to believe that religion has been misleading and controlling. Why is that? because of what man has done to religion. The bible doesn't say anything about clergy or needing to believe that christ was resurrected.
You also seem to have ignored the part where I said that miracles are for those who were present. The reality of the resurrection is a spiritual one, whether jesus existed exactly as people think he did, i.e., unmarried, married, actually crucified, not even killed etc. what matters is the spiritual reality. People get pissed off at religion when they have to accept a premise that is absurd or unnecessary. Religion is not an exclusive club of control it is humanity unified(hopefully.) As G.K. Chesterton said: "Christianity has never succeeded because it has never been tried." People who hate Christianity and who are Fundamentalists both have one thing in common, they think in black and white. It's either religion is evil or it's completely and literally right.
If one believes that it is scientifically possible prove that God made the universe or that he exists then either the boundaries of science are overstepped or one is believing in the existence of a God which is lesser than absolute. If God is the force behind the entire universe, one cannot hope to observe it with the same omniscience as one who encompasses it. In other words, an element of a system cannot fully describe the system of which it is a part.
St. Anselm said that "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (not perceived.) This does not prove the existence of a Divine Being but it certainly places it outside the limits of the human mind to understand if God or the nature of his existence. God has also been described by some(sorry no reference here) as the "ground of our being" putting it out of our grasp at the same level as the fact that we do not have memories in this world before our birth (or before past lives if you're one of those people.) Also, think of the difference in understanding which there must be between an insect which may only live for a week's time and a dog which lives for 15 years and a man who can live for 100. There is a huge difference in understanding of the universe and of time. Ultimately all of these physical beings die and do not see the entire process of time. It is assumed by theologists, religions, etc that God is timeless, exists throughout the infinity of time and goes beyond it and even on that level if God exists, we are transcended by God. If you assume these statements are true then God cannot be as simple as creationists wish God to be. It seems what creationists wish god to be is "That than which nothing greater can be perceived. Meaning God is simply the feeling I feel on Sunday and he's the miracle maker who does fancy wonderful things. I personally believe that miracles are meant for the people who were there to see them and that their true power is a spiritual miracle. That God is more complex than proving something wrong (i.e. evolution) because it makes you uncomfortable and that Adam and Eve had a pet T-Rex.
Btw, I do believe that evolution occurs on a physical level but I believe that the reality is that humanity has always existed and that humans have always been humans (in essence.) I don't believe that God is out to confuse humankind and that religion is meant to oppress. As Baha'u'llah said "If religion is a point of contention, there should be no religion at all." I believe in a better God than that.
This wasn't meant to be preaching or ranting. I am just tired of religion being called social control and of people who oppress half of their existence by attempting to ignore their brain and who are afraid of their ability to think.
This isn't meant to be a full explanation or that I believe this logic is fully airtight, I just think it's better logic than exploding dinosaurs.
His comments reek of truthiness. I mod him -1 flamebait. Just saying that reality doesn't exist for situation or person A is extremely vague. One type of reality is social reality and it seems that the only way that Bill O'Reilly deals with anyone is through manipulation. I think he needs to take a look at his own reality. I think that one loses a grip on reality when one loses track of priorities. Also, some random guy on tv saying that "broad group of people" is not in touch with reality because I feel like they probably don't have a handle on reality doesn't really mean anything nor is it helpful.
Slashdot Mirror
well as I pointed out, when it's a royal family the rules change rather drastically. However, the people on livejournal most likely aren't royalty or recently related to royalty and I doubt they're discussing the implications of incest within royal families anyhow. My point is that they are talking about incest more sexually than marriage related.
since I can't edit my post... I meant relative not relevant and some cultures may allow for brother/sister marriage just not many whatsoever.
As a student of Anthropology I can tell you that all cultures have an incest taboo for parent/child relations as well as brother/sister. The only situation in which brother/sister marriage is for marriages in the royal family to keep the bloodline pure. As you mentioned, this is practiced in Egypt and also in Hawaii. Cousin marriages are much more commonplace in other cultures and usually occur when they can provide benefits for the economic and social wellbeing of kin groups.
This isn't a question of morality being relevant or not, it's a question of ignorance of culture. There are reasons why one marries a certain person and in other countries it usually isn't for love, it's for the group as a whole. It is likely that much of what is being discussed (by western peoples, who I am assuming are in the majority) on Livejournal is not an anthropological discussion or has any similarity to the accepted practices of incest in other cultures. Therefore, it's irrelevant to discuss the marriage practices of other cultures in this context.
I doubt it, my mom drives a prius and it gets better mileage just by being a hybrid. Also all of the hybrid technology does NOT invalidate intelligent technologies. In the Prius for instance there is a mechanism which uses breaking to restore power to the battery so that can be easily put together with some other system that has to do with saving mileage by simply providing information to the driver.
I don't like his point that it's just as good because then I can simply just take that and say. What if Hybrid technology was mixed with "intelligent car" technology. It would only further increase a car's efficiency. Just because one has any kind of technology that helps them doesn't mean that they should rely wholly on that. I agree with the other posters about showing the MPG. If the MPG was showed it would allow the driver to test out different gas saving ideas and all of these things put together will raise fuel efficiency. So when I hear people saying that "well you shouldn't use this because this is better" but they are two different things that can be used together. I say why not use both?
You can't even use gold or items in the real world anyhow so it's ridiculous to tax it. That's like taxing you for your monopoly money earnings. It's especially silly because the meaning of the game economy could change at any moment for almost no reason. However, it could be good if they start taxing for real money for in-game items/gold transfers because it would make people think twice about doing them and maybe it would lower the amount of gold selling/buying and help fix in-game economies.
or "chai tea"
so the RIAA are LARPing?
"Unfortunately, many states give quite a bit of power in determining how elections are run to a Secretary of State that is elected based on party affiliation, which undermines the system significantly."
speaking of this, don't you think it's weird that Ohio's election director Kenneth Blackwell was running for governor right around this time?
It seems as though every single time someone makes some kind of defensive fortification (be it stone walls or coding), someone finds a way around it. Just because things are DRM'ed doesn't mean they can't be un-DRMed unless they are made utterly flawed. People built huge stone walls, other people built cannons and the stone walls didn't stand a chance. You don't see too many castles in use as military bases these days.
best mounted combat game ever for PC and I had never heard of it before I saw a posting on a forum.
I was suprised this game exists.
this is the main website.
http://www.taleworlds.com/
I don't buy that whole "If you act like a baby, I'm going to treat you like a baby" stuff. It doesn't work in a court of law to claim ignorance and it isn't brought into account if you live in your parents basement, only the fact that you're 35 when you committed the crime. If a parent treats their child as infantile it does not help that child to grow up whatsoever. The only thing it does is spites. If society is to move on then trust must be established.
the same could be said of racing games. But Axe commercials in Ghost Recon? The unintended marketing may make me think the guns in that game are cool (whether I can buy them or not.) same with the helicopters. However, I don't buy a game for someone to obviously try and ensnare me in a web of consumerism that I didn't pay for.
not just an open flame, but unlike wood et al, it doesn't explode under unfortunate circumstances.
I remember reading the previous article and thinking that this article that I am replying to was forthcoming.
I feel like people are too quick to say anything when it comes to energy. I see a continuous line of, OH! This is the answer! I think that we should continue trying to make all sources of energy more efficient. More efficiency from fossil fuels, hydrogen, solar cells, wind etc etc I believe it's irresponsible to attempt and rely on any source of energy, only to try and move the least clean ones to the peripheral of our energy needs if it can be done. We don't have to have giant solar farms to benefit from solar cells. we can start to lower the power requirements of things by adding little power boosts here and there. This could include things like more solar water heaters (I'd like one here in America, I hear they're available elsewhere.) Overall, I think that we should continue to advance all of the technologies that we have available and we will start to see more and more energy savings and can use that as a springboard to greater advances in low-energy hydrogen production or fusion.
one thing I would like to see is that every single employee not be held to the same exact work standards. this does not mean effort, or work ethic, but skill and talent. When I worked at Best Buy I was a tireless stocker and I constantly would find things for customers but I never bothered to offer every single person the best buy card and so therefore some managers didn't like me very much. Maybe one revolution from the bottom-up is that the employees could refuse to sell stupid meaningless things to customers and try to sell them things that one would buy for one's self in that situation.
I'm going to go put myself in the microwave for a few seconds, just to be sure. brb.
Living in Ohio (at least in Cleveland) I can say that we have a huge amount of cloudy, rainy days so I wonder how they hope to ever get anything off the ground.
I don't believe he was saying all moral laws, he was saying that we have learned as a society over time.
I don't agree with your idea that biblical laws apply today (from a religious perspective.) We live in a drastically different time than the people for whom the laws were written. Just because there are many people today who say that those laws should be followed as if we lived in Israel in 1400BC doesn't mean that's what is true. The population of earth is exponentially higher than it was thousands of years ago and the speed of travel and information is the same.
We obviously live in a more complex society with the need for different general rules. The other problem that people have is that they assume that religious laws should have anything to do with the government. If the bible calls for the death penalty for something, then it is allowing a group of people (however large) to use that as an effective form of punishment. It doesn't mean that God will hold everyone responsible when someone doesn't take vengeance in his name.
"More regrettable, was the loss of how to read all that."
l
yes it is regrettable when languages are lost whether we can decipher them or not, but I believe the Mayan language has at least been partially deciphered.
http://www.pauahtun.org/MayanGlyphs/syllabary.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popol_Vuh
When they killed Socrates they said they did it because he was "corrupting the youth."
religion and faith are not the same thing. If you accept any premise such as axioms in math or scientific data, you have to believe that it has some truth to it. As you said, you don't just believe that Napoleon is that guy on the street.
You seem to have some kind of hatred going against religion which is based on a few people you don't like and so you make broad generalizations. Faith is required in science to believe that what you are seeing is real. That's simplifying it but that is the basic. If you read my post then you would see I said that it could not be proved that God is exists. Certitude is the fusion of faith and reason which leads you to a belief system. Yours is that "Jeebus and religion suck, LOL!" Certainly people have right to believe that religion has been misleading and controlling. Why is that? because of what man has done to religion. The bible doesn't say anything about clergy or needing to believe that christ was resurrected.
You also seem to have ignored the part where I said that miracles are for those who were present. The reality of the resurrection is a spiritual one, whether jesus existed exactly as people think he did, i.e., unmarried, married, actually crucified, not even killed etc. what matters is the spiritual reality. People get pissed off at religion when they have to accept a premise that is absurd or unnecessary. Religion is not an exclusive club of control it is humanity unified(hopefully.) As G.K. Chesterton said: "Christianity has never succeeded because it has never been tried." People who hate Christianity and who are Fundamentalists both have one thing in common, they think in black and white. It's either religion is evil or it's completely and literally right.
Religion without science is superstition.
If one believes that it is scientifically possible prove that God made the universe or that he exists then either the boundaries of science are overstepped or one is believing in the existence of a God which is lesser than absolute. If God is the force behind the entire universe, one cannot hope to observe it with the same omniscience as one who encompasses it. In other words, an element of a system cannot fully describe the system of which it is a part.
St. Anselm said that "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (not perceived.) This does not prove the existence of a Divine Being but it certainly places it outside the limits of the human mind to understand if God or the nature of his existence. God has also been described by some(sorry no reference here) as the "ground of our being" putting it out of our grasp at the same level as the fact that we do not have memories in this world before our birth (or before past lives if you're one of those people.) Also, think of the difference in understanding which there must be between an insect which may only live for a week's time and a dog which lives for 15 years and a man who can live for 100. There is a huge difference in understanding of the universe and of time. Ultimately all of these physical beings die and do not see the entire process of time. It is assumed by theologists, religions, etc that God is timeless, exists throughout the infinity of time and goes beyond it and even on that level if God exists, we are transcended by God. If you assume these statements are true then God cannot be as simple as creationists wish God to be. It seems what creationists wish god to be is "That than which nothing greater can be perceived. Meaning God is simply the feeling I feel on Sunday and he's the miracle maker who does fancy wonderful things. I personally believe that miracles are meant for the people who were there to see them and that their true power is a spiritual miracle. That God is more complex than proving something wrong (i.e. evolution) because it makes you uncomfortable and that Adam and Eve had a pet T-Rex.
Btw, I do believe that evolution occurs on a physical level but I believe that the reality is that humanity has always existed and that humans have always been humans (in essence.) I don't believe that God is out to confuse humankind and that religion is meant to oppress. As Baha'u'llah said "If religion is a point of contention, there should be no religion at all." I believe in a better God than that.
This wasn't meant to be preaching or ranting. I am just tired of religion being called social control and of people who oppress half of their existence by attempting to ignore their brain and who are afraid of their ability to think. This isn't meant to be a full explanation or that I believe this logic is fully airtight, I just think it's better logic than exploding dinosaurs.
His comments reek of truthiness. I mod him -1 flamebait. Just saying that reality doesn't exist for situation or person A is extremely vague. One type of reality is social reality and it seems that the only way that Bill O'Reilly deals with anyone is through manipulation. I think he needs to take a look at his own reality. I think that one loses a grip on reality when one loses track of priorities. Also, some random guy on tv saying that "broad group of people" is not in touch with reality because I feel like they probably don't have a handle on reality doesn't really mean anything nor is it helpful.