quote:Nevertheless, individual theists do this all the time. Consider the Catholic doctrine on abortion, for example, versus the actual practice of Catholics.
Choosing to violate your doctrine is different from deciding you think it's wrong. If that were not the case, where would guilt come from? [/QB]
I have seen many Catholics quoted as saying that they simply disagree with the Church on this, and feel no guilt over living accordingly.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: We believe that He designed our bodies for a lot of specific purposes. Our brains support abstract rational thought, which is essential to making moral choices. We have the ability to use tools to create things and generate prosperity for ourselves and one another. All of these abilities give us experience doing things that are similar to what God does. They give us a window into His life and His experience, and the intent is for us to one day take all that we've learned and join Him in that life.
If we were to, on a large scale, alter ourselves in such a way that we completely frustrated those purposes, I think that this particular project (of raising heirs to join God in His pursuits) would cease to be meaningful, and we would cease to be human in the way that matters, spiritually. God would either (1) prevent it, (2) end the project when it happened, or (3) revise His purposes to account for it. But things could not simply continue unchanged. Individual cases of crossed genes can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis (and I believe that is how the Church handles them, too). An entire species that is no longer in the image of God creates an entirely new challenge.
What about altering ourselves on a large scale to better those purposes? For example, there are numerous imperfections with our bodies that could potentially be fixed by genetic engineering.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the Franklin Institute had the Star Wars exhibit, there was a part on cybernetic enhancement and its potential effects. It was rather interesting for them to point out a few social problems inherent with the idea.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nevertheless, individual theists do this all the time. Consider the Catholic doctrine on abortion, for example, versus the actual practice of Catholics.
Choosing to violate your doctrine is different from deciding you think it's wrong. If that were not the case, where would guilt come from?
I have seen many Catholics quoted as saying that they simply disagree with the Church on this, and feel no guilt over living accordingly.
Especially in Quebec.
I would also add that the question of what is violating doctrine is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. If someone here decides to switch between two very similar churches, simply on account of their stance on same-sex, is that a violation of doctrine?
What if we go further to China where many people pick and choose traditions and beliefs ad-hoc from Taoism, Confucianism, and ancestor worship anyways?
Religions with strict anti-dissent controls and relatively homogeneous doctrines among their population are common, but certainly are not the rule.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: When the Franklin Institute had the Star Wars exhibit, there was a part on cybernetic enhancement and its potential effects. It was rather interesting for them to point out a few social problems inherent with the idea.
From time to time I've thought about making a thread about why the potential creation of artificial intelligence is simultaneously super exciting and super scary (and why, despite the fact that I am uneasy about the whole concept in general, I have basically decided to make it my field of study).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
On an odd related note, xkcd now informs us that (as verified here http://www.google.com/trends?q=men+kissing&geo=US ) Utah holds the record among all states in terms of searching for "men kissing"
quote:1. Utah, United States 2. Kentucky, United States 3. South Carolina, United States 4. Indiana, United States 5. Ohio, United States 6. Connecticut, United States 7. New Jersey, United States 8. Michigan, United States 9. Georgia, United States 10. Pennsylvania, United States
California isn't even in the top 10. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
1. Despite the seeming concentration in California, there is actually many more homosexuals in the states listed above, self-identification on all sides be damned.
-OR-
2. There is no methodology, numbers given, explanation, or point to this. It means nothing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if there are more "other-than-Google" resources for those sorts of searches in non-California places. That is, is the likelihood of actually seeing men kissing live -- or being actually able to kiss a man oneself, without it being as significantly unusual event -- making it less likely that one would default to googling information, stories, or images? Or, even moreso, having an easy and direct access to stories, videos, etc., available at hand making Google less of a primary source?
I honestly don't know. I don't really think it matters so much; as katharina indicates, I wouldn't find it compelling to draw firm conclusions about any of this, other than just the bare facts of what is presented. (Further interpretation is a whole other ball of wax.) It does strike me that there are a whole host of potentially confounding variables that might be at play, and that makes me even more wary of drawing such conclusions.
posted
1. If I thought it mattered much, I wouldn't have posted it as coming from xkcd. Since it does come from xkcd, obviously humour is important factor.
In any case, its an undeniable fact that Google records more searches for that term from Utah than any other state. However, your interpretations about what that means is your own and I haven't given any, hence *shrug*
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
In case it isn't clear, Mucus, I register neither quibble nor surprise in reaction to your last post. I knew you were just presenting it as an interesting tidbit -- you even *shrug*ged.
It was clear to me you weren't advancing a particular thesis. I was musing on my own about why such theses would be more complicated to defend than may be apparent, but again, it was clear to me you weren't going that direction, anyway.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, thats ok. I was intending to respond to katharina's post, hence the repeated use of the word "methodology" and the structure of the post. I probably should have made that more clear.
I just wanted to make it explicit that I was not in agreement with either point 1 or point 2.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus has shown an interest in Utahns who show an interest in men kissing. I must uncover the meaning of this! Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
No, I think that's a false dichotomy. It could be that homosexuals in California use other search terms, which is something we could check with Google Trends by testing other similar sets of search terms and looking at the geographic results.
I also enjoyed the top search location for "raptors on hoverboards." Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, there are many other possible explanations (differing usage of Google, not always gay men searching, and numerous other variants).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh my goodness! Searches for "gay men kissing" are most common in Ohio!!!
As Katharina stated this means absolutely nothing. Though it does say a lot about the people who are making a big deal about it. Specifically that they have all the maturity of a group of giggling teenagers making fun of the weird kid in class.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bloggers that brought it up in the first place, for one. And just for future reference, Mucus, despite your *shrug* the mere act of posting this tidbit in this particular thread, which had been thankfully off the front page for over a month, infers a certain amount of meaning in and of itself, don't you think?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll bet that the people who find glee in those google statistics are those (like myself) who are amused at the idea of Utah being full of closet cases.
I'll bet that the people who want to explain away those stats are those who are horrified at the idea of Utah being full of closet cases.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And people who find glee in those google statistics sit around and laugh about it and make fun of those stupid conservatives despite the fact that these statistics really do mean absolutely nothing. An attitude that just screams high school locker room.
Those of us who are explaining away the statistics are actually *thinking* about it before pointing and laughing.
And let's go further. What's wrong with people who are "in the closet"? That's their choice and yet you mock them. How immature.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I thought was weird was that everything I searched for the trends for was the same-- most often searched for in Utah, specifically Salt Lake City.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: The bloggers that brought it up in the first place, for one. And just for future reference, Mucus, despite your *shrug* the mere act of posting this tidbit in this particular thread, which had been thankfully off the front page for over a month, infers a certain amount of meaning in and of itself, don't you think?
What bloggers?
As for the second part, yes, it means I find xkcd amusing and wish to share it, something I've been pretty upfront about.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its fairly easy to access this thread through my profile since I started it. The thread is also relatively recent and is gay related.
I'd have to use the search function to find an xkcd thread. I also don't think its important enough to start a completely new thread.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Did you read the text in the comic? "Bloggers were recently amused to discover..."
Also, do you post a link to every XKCD comic there is? Just the ones you think are funny? Or do you post the links to make a specific point? If you didn't think it was deserving a completely new thread, then why did you post it at all?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The text says "amused", you expanded on that to "people who find glee in those google statistics sit around and laugh about it and make fun of those stupid conservatives despite the fact that these statistics really do mean absolutely nothing."
I had assumed that you had additional information that had led to that rather drastic expansion.
I post links to XKCD comics that I find amusing.
I post many things that are interesting, yet not important enough for a new thread, in existing threads. This is pretty common procedure.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Foust pretty well proved that my assumption that people were laughing about it and mocking conservatives was accurate. And as you know, the guy who writes XKCD has a talent for understatement. It wouldn't take a very large stretch of the imagination to believe that that is exactly what is happening.
Furthermore, the act of posting the comic in this particular thread suggests an attempt to foster such "glee" in the people who agree with you. The *shrug* seems to me to be little more than a way to deflect your true purpose.
Perhaps instead of backpedaling and trying to defend your choices, you should apologize for fostering such mockery. Whether whether that was your intention or not.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boris. Knock it off. Geez, he found something funny. No need to make a federal case out of it.
You'd think you were, like, in the closet or something, the way you're acting so oversensitive about it.
I mean, if you're gonna throw hostile accusations over someone showing a probably fictional bit of humor...
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's too bad really, that there are so many closeted gay men in Utah, although it's not surprising if the friendly attitude about the internet search stats here is any judge of how they'd be welcomed out.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's really funny, is that Kissing Men and Men Kissing show the same exact trends. Because they're the same thing according to the search engine. Guess what the first response is...10 secrets to a great first kiss - According to men. Sounds like a lot of women have been trying to figure out how to kiss. Not very surprising to me that Utah is at the top there, since kissing is such a big deal there. Oops...that has nothing to do with gay men.
edit: And Megabyte, I'm making a point about how so many liberals have this really annoying tendency to just simply make fun of people who don't agree with them rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue. Mucus gave me an opportunity to point it out. Foust proved my point. You did, too, by stating that I "must be in the closet" by the way I was treating this. I suppose it's so much easier to believe that you're right about everything if the people who don't agree with you are just idiots who don't know what's best for themselves. Thank you for proving, though, that one of the admirable tenants of liberal-mindedness, to avoid offending others, is something that isn't really held to very often.
[ December 29, 2008, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
My use of that sarcastic statement was in fact intentional.
I don't care about what "other people" do. I'm not them. Talking about "so many liberals" is meaningless to me, because Morbo isn't them, and I'm not them either. All I see is what you're doing right now.
And that little sarcastic bit? Just a flippant taste of your own medicine. Do unto others.
And for you to take my reaction to your stupid insults and apply it to others?
Once again, do unto others, or I'll do back to you, you, you, cartoonish villain.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean, seriously, Boris. I don't even believe that statement. And where do you get I'm even a standard liberal, except through your own bland stereotypes?
Since when do you imagine not offending others has been a tenet of mine? What do you know of me, or how varied liberals tend to be, Boris? I mean really.
I said what I said because you pissed me off, because you're acting like a brat. Get offended all you want. There's, in fact, nothing to agree with or disagree with in your statement. You were just being a jerk, so I was making fun of what I see as such. Because perhaps, you'll see "gosh, I was wrong, this doesn't feel good, maybe I shouldn't do it to others!"
Well, I don't expect that to happen, but it was fun to say it anyway! Don't take sarcastic things as serious, dude. Let jokes be.
After all, there are plenty of jokes out there for the opposite side. You imagine, really, that making fun of people is merely a commonly liberal trait?
This is the internet, dude. Look at places like AOL and myspace, and then come back here. You'll be surprised to find, gasp, that making fun of people tends to be a common trait of all human groups, everywhere.
Or at least online, anyway.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arguments aside, are you *really* using myspace as an example for any kind of behavior on the internet that one should emulate? Really?
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm making a point about how so many liberals have this really annoying tendency to just simply make fun of people who don't agree with them rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue.
Hey, never let it be said that I've turned down a meaningful dialogue about the plight of closeted homosexual Mormons.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or that you've ever turned down a chance to mock and condescend to people instead of respecting their stories about themselves.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does it really still bother you that I don't think you've ever actually felt God? I mean, seriously, you should really get over that. I'm not going to suddenly change my mind just because you've chosen to interpret an experience incorrectly, and it seems silly for you to haul out that old complaint every time you believe you've got the flimsiest pretext.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I think Foust pretty well proved that my assumption that people were laughing about it and mocking conservatives was accurate.
Except Foust posted *after* your long description of "people." More confusingly, after I asked you "what people", you replied "the bloggers" and not Foust. So which people did you actually mean in your first two posts?
I'm not questioning that such people exist. I've merely been trying to figure out who *exactly* you've been talking about.
quote: Perhaps instead of backpedaling and trying to defend your choices, you should apologize for fostering such mockery. Whether whether that was your intention or not.
What choices, exactly?
From my POV, all I've really chosen to do is post a description of an XKCD comic and a link to the Google Trends that it references in a relevant thread. I also haven't even provided an interpretation. I suppose that those are two choices, are those the choices that you mean? Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
My use of that sarcastic statement was in fact intentional.
I don't care about what "other people" do. I'm not them. Talking about "so many liberals" is meaningless to me, because Morbo isn't them, and I'm not them either. All I see is what you're doing right now.
And that little sarcastic bit? Just a flippant taste of your own medicine. Do unto others.
And for you to take my reaction to your stupid insults and apply it to others?
Once again, do unto others, or I'll do back to you, you, you, cartoonish villain.
Do unto others? Hmmm...Did I make a crack about someone's sexuality in here? Anywhere? Did I make fun of another person's beliefs? No. I've been calling for a *stop* to the name calling. I have not called one person a name in here. All I did was point out that there are people who are acting like teenagers and calling it enlightenment. Do you think that type of attitude is intelligent? Do you really think that mocking people is a good way to get them to see your point of view? Ever?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... Oops...that has nothing to do with gay men.
Who are you trying to refute?
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... Thank you for proving, though, that one of the admirable tenants of liberal-mindedness, to avoid offending others, is something that isn't really held to very often.
Do the names Chretien or Trudeau, both famously outspoken Liberal Prime Ministers of Canada, mean nothing to you?
Since when is non-offensiveness a tenant of liberals?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I'm making a point about how so many liberals have this really annoying tendency to just simply make fun of people who don't agree with them rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue.
...
I suppose it's so much easier to believe that you're right about everything if the people who don't agree with you are just idiots who don't know what's best for themselves.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[/QB]
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
