And, no it is not possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena. We've ruled that out. We have?
Actually, I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to. The OP asked a question, and I answered it. He asked what is wrong with pornography and I replied with the statements you have quoted about people demeaning themselves. I didn't make any statements about what people should be allowed or not allowed to do. The fact that people make a choice to participate in a given behavior doesn't lessen the harm it does to them.
Well, except for the fact that it demeans women (and men for that matter), cheapens and turns a God-given gift into a commodity, reduces human beings from being to people to be loved and honored to being objects and tools for one's one self-gratification-- not much I guess.
Did anyone notice that one of the spokesmen for the companies had the title of Vice-President for Intellectual Property Litigation? I don't know that I want to do away with software patents altogether (maybe, I'm not sure), but it bothers me when a company has a department, evidently important enough to be headed by a vice president, dedicated to litigation. Here's another vote for some serious reform in the patent system.
Hi. Actually, the purpose of my post was not to demonstrate my scientific prowess against that of the climate change scientists. And I did make this statement: "I don't discount what scientists say...." This is true. I don't discount or ignore what scientists say. My intention however, was to argue that other factors are also in play in every discussion.
I agree with you to some extent. I don't believe that all opinions on a given subject are equally valid and should be given equal weight.
For example, there is a good reason I take my car to a trained mechanic instead of trying to repair it myself. (One time I changed the spark plugs on my own. During a subsequent trip my car "broke down." The tow truck driver who responded found the problem. I hadn't tightened one of the plugs enough, and he found it on top of the engine.) He is a person who has chosen to specialize in a given field (fixing cars). He invested the necessary time to accumulate knowledge and to develop the skills necessary to repair cars. I would not dream of declaring myself an expert on car repair and going into the business.
Recently however, my car developed a problem. As I was driving, an irritating, somewhat metallic sound starting coming from the front of the car. It only stopped when I applied the brakes. Due to this "cause-effect" relationship I assumed the problem involved the brakes. I took it to the mechanic. Of course it would not make the same noise for him. He did check the brakes, but told me that although the pads and rotors would need replacing within a couple of months, this was apparently not the source of the problem. He told me if the noise recurred to bring the car back. It did on the way home and on the way back to the mechanics the next day. This time he heard it as he was driving in the car with me. He said, "I don't know what that is." We went back to the shop, and he again inspected the brakes. As it turns out, the problem was the worn brake pads. For some unknown reason, the brake pads on one side were more worn than the other. The previous day he had only inspected the pads/rotors on one side of the car and not on the other (problematic side). Evidently, he had assumed that the brake pads would wear at the same rate.
Is my point, "Ha, Ha, Ha, I was right about the problem and the trained professional was wrong. Therefore, untrained laymen know more about climate change than climate scientists."? No, not at all. As far as I know, my mechanic is a honest, skilled professional, and I will continue to use him unless I have a good reason not to. My point is, professionals can make mistakes. Therefore, when I take my car to a mechanic, I take his opinion very seriously. He does know more than I do. In the majority of cases, he will be right (or course, the initial "diagnosis" may be disproved by further investigation, just as in science). However, even though I am not an expert, it is incumbent on me to use all the knowledge and resources available to me to ascertain whether or not a given repair is warranted. I can use my God-given reasoning powers to investigate the mechanic's claim, and if I feel it is warranted, refuse the repair or go to another mechanic.
Scientists can be wrong. Even a consensus of scientists can be wrong. They may be right about the fact of global warning, but be wrong about the cause or causes. They may believe what they do today but not tomorrow. As I pointed out in my former post, we have hidden motivations, and these can affect how we view and analyze the available evidence.
An underlying assumption of your post seems to be that the more formal education a person acquires, the more weight should be given to his or her opinion. I have to an extent conceded your opinion and to an extent attempted to rebut it above. However, we also need to be aware that some would argue that there are forces at work that tend to encourage conformity to the commonly accepted opinions held by the institution and its professors and teachers rather
As a Christian who is able to think for myself, I'd like to make a response to your comments.
First, I agree somewhat with you. I too am uncomfortable with some of the politicization of the Church in America. The Church is at it's best when it is under pressure and persecution, not when it is wielding political power. I really don't care much for state religions myself.
However, I don't believe that Christians (even fundamentalists) has a monopoly on denying the truth. It is basic human nature to deny what we don't won't to see. The Bible actually describes and depicts this willful tendency of ours toward self-blinding.
I don't discount what scientists say, but then again I also treat it with some skepticism because I know that scientists are subject to the same problems that the rest of us are. Their judgment can be affected by self-interest just as much as you and me.
Also, I beg to differ on another point. Positive opinions on the topics you have mentioned are, with a doubt, held by many Christians. But, wouldn't you agree they are also held by many non-Christians also? Are "fundamentalist Christians" the only people who deny evolution? Are fundamentalist Christians the only people who are skeptical regarding global warming? Are fundamentalist Christians the only people who believe in free market capitalism?
I would ask you, why do non-Christians hold some of these same views you seem to be opposing? Are they somehow under the control of the same "force" as the "fundamentalist Christians"? How do you explain this?
Also, if you believe that "fundamentalist Christians" are somehow being controlled for the benefit of commercial interests, I think there is something else to take into account. You will probably find these same "fundamentalists" also hold some opinions antithetical to those of business. For example, many large businesses provide benefits for "same-sex partners." I don't think the fundamentalists like that. In this case, it seems they are thinking for themselves.
You also seem to be assuming that no one who honestly examines the facts on global warming, evolution, capitalism, etc., can come to an conclusion opposite to your own. Might I suggest that people of integrity can find themselves on opposites sides of an issue for reasons other than a desire not to face the truth?
Please remember that you are also bringing your own set of presuppositions to the discussion, and that there are factors influencing your thinking of which you not aware.
I just disposed of the first computer I ever bought. It was an HP Pavilion 7955 with a 1.5G Pentium 4, 768 meg memory, and a 40GB hard drive. I bought it at the end of 2001 I think when Windows XP first came out.
A Google search helped me find a good home for it. I gave it to a project called HandyCable Networks located in Greensboro, North Carolina (US). This group utilizes disabled people who refurbish the computers and give them to needy people. What they can't fix they strip of usable parts and recycle the rest. They have a special license from Microsoft that lets them install Windows on the refurbished computers.
It seemed to me to be a "Win-Win" situation. I got rid of a computer I didn't want anymore. The people in the program gain skills by working on the computers. Somebody will get a decent computer. And the environment will benefit by keeping some more waste materials out of the landfill for at least a while longer.
If you're in driving distance of Greensboro, NC (US) here is their site where you can find contact information if you have a donation:
http://www.handycapable.org/
If you aren't close enough, a web search will probably find some other organizations who could use some of your old stuff.
I can see where these services would be useful for collaborative projects involving people in far flung locations. But for regular business use how many companies want to store their data on someone else's server?
If it goes to the Supreme Court it might be a good thing. At least we might see some clarification of what is/is not permissible. There some to be some gray areas in copyright law.
Hi xappax,
Actually, it would be interesting to know what you do consider evil. I gathered from your post that you feel I am drawing black and white lines where there are grey areas. Where are the lines for you? It's ok to consider other people's perspectives. But wouldn't you agree that at the end of the day, after you've thought about it, there are things that are just wrong?
To keep this on topic, where are the gray areas where the game under discussion is involved? Do you think it's a good thing for people to enjoy a game where they are putting themselves in the place of killing innocent people (even people who only exist in the RAM of their computer)? What do you see as a gray area in that?
What would you consider evil?
I believe it goes beyond bad taste. What Hilter and Mussolini did was evil. What Harris and Kliebold did was evil. To derive pleasure from another person's evil actions is evil. To fantasize about committing evil actions is evil.
Ok, I know the answer. They make there money on hardware--not software. But I still wish they would give a serious attempt toward giving Microsoft some competition on home and business desktops.
I like Linux. The software is fine. But the GPL seems to cause a lot of complications. You can't ship this codec with that player, and you can't link this library with that program. If you use this driver you violate this rule....
I would like to see Sun and the Open Source community they are trying to build really make a decent desktop system out of Solaris. Give people another alternative to Microsoft, Apple, and yes, even Linux. My pragmatic (at least where it involves software) would like to see a free (as in price) with freely available source code that allows one to use proprietary drivers and codecs without a lot of legal uncertainty. And if you don't want to use them, you wouldn't have to.
As to whether it will happen or not, I don't know. But I hope it will.
To what sense is shame still an effective deterrent? To feel shame requires that one sense that in some way his actions are socially unacceptable. As the boundaries of our culture seemed to have been stretched further and further, what was once unacceptable is now acceptable. For example, once homosexual behavior was deemed unacceptable. Now, it seems at times, homosexuality is almost a "status symbol." Increasingly, rudeness seems to be tolerated. Right wing and Left wing political figures and commentators insult one another with abandon. It seems to me that there are an increasing number of people who seem unable to sense when they have crossed the boundaries (or else they don't care).
Well RightSaidFred99, Microsoft could announce tomorrow that they're going to open source all of their software under the GPL. But, I don't think I would wait on it. Maybe you have seen something I haven't, but NVidia doesn't seem to be making any noises about opening their drivers.
Ok, I am not a scientist, so please bear with me (or just bear me, if need be). But how do they know what the temperature was four hundred years (or longer) ago? How long has it been possible to measure temperature with any degree (no pun intended) of accuracy?
She is free to use her uterus as she sees fit. But the life of a child is its own. A mother is meant to protect the lives of her children. It should not be the government's place to have to legislate this.
No, people have realized that society cannot exist in its current form without protected ownership. Morality has nothing to do with it, it's pragmatism.
It is morally wrong for cremations to take place. The body is burnt, which leaves the soul with no clear path to heaven. The atheists say that people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies, but we pro-lifers know better. The government needs to step in and take control to ensure that innocent souls don't get lost in limbo. And once we acomplish that, we'll pass a law making baptism mandatory. Then we'll make Christianity the official state religion. We wouldn't want innocent people to go to hell, and it's obviously the government's job to guarantee that.
I would rather not get into a discussion of the metaphysical mechanics of souls. Let's suffice it to say that if you do a wrong to a person, you're doing it to the whole person--not just their "soul."
In a couple years, we'll have the same attitude towards embryos.
No offense intended toward you Tom, but if we keep loosening our standards of what is acceptable and not acceptable we may come to the point where we will see other classes of people as expendable.
Slashdot Mirror
Is he claiming a patent on this dance step? I don't know how he can. I'm sure there is prior art for bad dancing. Or should I say prior artlessness? ;)
I can't believe you didn't get any mod points for this; I thought it was pretty good. :)
Actually, I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to. The OP asked a question, and I answered it. He asked what is wrong with pornography and I replied with the statements you have quoted about people demeaning themselves. I didn't make any statements about what people should be allowed or not allowed to do. The fact that people make a choice to participate in a given behavior doesn't lessen the harm it does to them.
Well, except for the fact that it demeans women (and men for that matter), cheapens and turns a God-given gift into a commodity, reduces human beings from being to people to be loved and honored to being objects and tools for one's one self-gratification-- not much I guess.
Ok....thanks for clearing that up.
Did anyone notice that one of the spokesmen for the companies had the title of Vice-President for Intellectual Property Litigation? I don't know that I want to do away with software patents altogether (maybe, I'm not sure), but it bothers me when a company has a department, evidently important enough to be headed by a vice president, dedicated to litigation. Here's another vote for some serious reform in the patent system.
Hi. Do you deny that there are gaps and problems and/or inconsistencies in the theory of evolution? If there are, there is still room for debate.
Hi. Actually, the purpose of my post was not to demonstrate my scientific prowess against that of the climate change scientists. And I did make this statement: "I don't discount what scientists say...." This is true. I don't discount or ignore what scientists say. My intention however, was to argue that other factors are also in play in every discussion.
I agree with you to some extent. I don't believe that all opinions on a given subject are equally valid and should be given equal weight.
For example, there is a good reason I take my car to a trained mechanic instead of trying to repair it myself. (One time I changed the spark plugs on my own. During a subsequent trip my car "broke down." The tow truck driver who responded found the problem. I hadn't tightened one of the plugs enough, and he found it on top of the engine.) He is a person who has chosen to specialize in a given field (fixing cars). He invested the necessary time to accumulate knowledge and to develop the skills necessary to repair cars. I would not dream of declaring myself an expert on car repair and going into the business.
Recently however, my car developed a problem. As I was driving, an irritating, somewhat metallic sound starting coming from the front of the car. It only stopped when I applied the brakes. Due to this "cause-effect" relationship I assumed the problem involved the brakes. I took it to the mechanic. Of course it would not make the same noise for him. He did check the brakes, but told me that although the pads and rotors would need replacing within a couple of months, this was apparently not the source of the problem. He told me if the noise recurred to bring the car back. It did on the way home and on the way back to the mechanics the next day. This time he heard it as he was driving in the car with me. He said, "I don't know what that is." We went back to the shop, and he again inspected the brakes. As it turns out, the problem was the worn brake pads. For some unknown reason, the brake pads on one side were more worn than the other. The previous day he had only inspected the pads/rotors on one side of the car and not on the other (problematic side). Evidently, he had assumed that the brake pads would wear at the same rate.
Is my point, "Ha, Ha, Ha, I was right about the problem and the trained professional was wrong. Therefore, untrained laymen know more about climate change than climate scientists."? No, not at all. As far as I know, my mechanic is a honest, skilled professional, and I will continue to use him unless I have a good reason not to. My point is, professionals can make mistakes. Therefore, when I take my car to a mechanic, I take his opinion very seriously. He does know more than I do. In the majority of cases, he will be right (or course, the initial "diagnosis" may be disproved by further investigation, just as in science). However, even though I am not an expert, it is incumbent on me to use all the knowledge and resources available to me to ascertain whether or not a given repair is warranted. I can use my God-given reasoning powers to investigate the mechanic's claim, and if I feel it is warranted, refuse the repair or go to another mechanic.
Scientists can be wrong. Even a consensus of scientists can be wrong. They may be right about the fact of global warning, but be wrong about the cause or causes. They may believe what they do today but not tomorrow. As I pointed out in my former post, we have hidden motivations, and these can affect how we view and analyze the available evidence.
An underlying assumption of your post seems to be that the more formal education a person acquires, the more weight should be given to his or her opinion. I have to an extent conceded your opinion and to an extent attempted to rebut it above. However, we also need to be aware that some would argue that there are forces at work that tend to encourage conformity to the commonly accepted opinions held by the institution and its professors and teachers rather
As a Christian who is able to think for myself, I'd like to make a response to your comments.
First, I agree somewhat with you. I too am uncomfortable with some of the politicization of the Church in America. The Church is at it's best when it is under pressure and persecution, not when it is wielding political power. I really don't care much for state religions myself.
However, I don't believe that Christians (even fundamentalists) has a monopoly on denying the truth. It is basic human nature to deny what we don't won't to see. The Bible actually describes and depicts this willful tendency of ours toward self-blinding.
I don't discount what scientists say, but then again I also treat it with some skepticism because I know that scientists are subject to the same problems that the rest of us are. Their judgment can be affected by self-interest just as much as you and me.
Also, I beg to differ on another point. Positive opinions on the topics you have mentioned are, with a doubt, held by many Christians. But, wouldn't you agree they are also held by many non-Christians also? Are "fundamentalist Christians" the only people who deny evolution? Are fundamentalist Christians the only people who are skeptical regarding global warming? Are fundamentalist Christians the only people who believe in free market capitalism?
I would ask you, why do non-Christians hold some of these same views you seem to be opposing? Are they somehow under the control of the same "force" as the "fundamentalist Christians"? How do you explain this?
Also, if you believe that "fundamentalist Christians" are somehow being controlled for the benefit of commercial interests, I think there is something else to take into account. You will probably find these same "fundamentalists" also hold some opinions antithetical to those of business. For example, many large businesses provide benefits for "same-sex partners." I don't think the fundamentalists like that. In this case, it seems they are thinking for themselves.
You also seem to be assuming that no one who honestly examines the facts on global warming, evolution, capitalism, etc., can come to an conclusion opposite to your own. Might I suggest that people of integrity can find themselves on opposites sides of an issue for reasons other than a desire not to face the truth?
Please remember that you are also bringing your own set of presuppositions to the discussion, and that there are factors influencing your thinking of which you not aware.
I just disposed of the first computer I ever bought. It was an HP Pavilion 7955 with a 1.5G Pentium 4, 768 meg memory, and a 40GB hard drive. I bought it at the end of 2001 I think when Windows XP first came out. A Google search helped me find a good home for it. I gave it to a project called HandyCable Networks located in Greensboro, North Carolina (US). This group utilizes disabled people who refurbish the computers and give them to needy people. What they can't fix they strip of usable parts and recycle the rest. They have a special license from Microsoft that lets them install Windows on the refurbished computers. It seemed to me to be a "Win-Win" situation. I got rid of a computer I didn't want anymore. The people in the program gain skills by working on the computers. Somebody will get a decent computer. And the environment will benefit by keeping some more waste materials out of the landfill for at least a while longer. If you're in driving distance of Greensboro, NC (US) here is their site where you can find contact information if you have a donation: http://www.handycapable.org/ If you aren't close enough, a web search will probably find some other organizations who could use some of your old stuff.
I can see where these services would be useful for collaborative projects involving people in far flung locations. But for regular business use how many companies want to store their data on someone else's server?
If it goes to the Supreme Court it might be a good thing. At least we might see some clarification of what is/is not permissible. There some to be some gray areas in copyright law.
Hi xappax, Actually, it would be interesting to know what you do consider evil. I gathered from your post that you feel I am drawing black and white lines where there are grey areas. Where are the lines for you? It's ok to consider other people's perspectives. But wouldn't you agree that at the end of the day, after you've thought about it, there are things that are just wrong? To keep this on topic, where are the gray areas where the game under discussion is involved? Do you think it's a good thing for people to enjoy a game where they are putting themselves in the place of killing innocent people (even people who only exist in the RAM of their computer)? What do you see as a gray area in that? What would you consider evil?
I believe it goes beyond bad taste. What Hilter and Mussolini did was evil. What Harris and Kliebold did was evil. To derive pleasure from another person's evil actions is evil. To fantasize about committing evil actions is evil.
Ok, I know the answer. They make there money on hardware--not software. But I still wish they would give a serious attempt toward giving Microsoft some competition on home and business desktops. I like Linux. The software is fine. But the GPL seems to cause a lot of complications. You can't ship this codec with that player, and you can't link this library with that program. If you use this driver you violate this rule.... I would like to see Sun and the Open Source community they are trying to build really make a decent desktop system out of Solaris. Give people another alternative to Microsoft, Apple, and yes, even Linux. My pragmatic (at least where it involves software) would like to see a free (as in price) with freely available source code that allows one to use proprietary drivers and codecs without a lot of legal uncertainty. And if you don't want to use them, you wouldn't have to. As to whether it will happen or not, I don't know. But I hope it will.
To what sense is shame still an effective deterrent? To feel shame requires that one sense that in some way his actions are socially unacceptable. As the boundaries of our culture seemed to have been stretched further and further, what was once unacceptable is now acceptable. For example, once homosexual behavior was deemed unacceptable. Now, it seems at times, homosexuality is almost a "status symbol." Increasingly, rudeness seems to be tolerated. Right wing and Left wing political figures and commentators insult one another with abandon. It seems to me that there are an increasing number of people who seem unable to sense when they have crossed the boundaries (or else they don't care).
I don't know what operating system they do their development on, but here some people working toward an open source graphics card. http://wiki.duskglow.com/tiki-index.php?page=Open- Graphics
Well RightSaidFred99, Microsoft could announce tomorrow that they're going to open source all of their software under the GPL. But, I don't think I would wait on it. Maybe you have seen something I haven't, but NVidia doesn't seem to be making any noises about opening their drivers.
Ok, I am not a scientist, so please bear with me (or just bear me, if need be). But how do they know what the temperature was four hundred years (or longer) ago? How long has it been possible to measure temperature with any degree (no pun intended) of accuracy?
She is free to use her uterus as she sees fit. But the life of a child is its own. A mother is meant to protect the lives of her children. It should not be the government's place to have to legislate this.
I would rather not get into a discussion of the metaphysical mechanics of souls. Let's suffice it to say that if you do a wrong to a person, you're doing it to the whole person--not just their "soul."
I think you will find that many of the people who are against this treatment would refuse to accept it.