Government monitoring Twitter

[drone]

With social media, the government is always your friend.

I hope the italics are sarcasm, because, yes, I am, can you say ACLU. Well, I guess I shouldn't say they government itself is intolerant of Christianity, but there is an anti-Christian faction in our government.

Since when is the ACLU a faction of the government? They spend most of their time fighting government actions.

As for not being tolerant of Christian views and the supposed crackdown on religious freedom: the Westboro Baptist Church is still going strong. As long as they are running with few restrictions, claiming that religious freedom in general, and christian freedom specifically, is in any danger is ridiculous.

The WBC is not a church, it is a group of professional lawyers/trolls making a living off of people incapable of controlling their temper. They push their legal rights to the limit and then sue anyone who assaults them for cold hard cash. Ignore them and they will starve.

Telling somebody that they are wrong, and why they are wrong, is not dictating their life. They are welcome to ignore me, or show me why I am wrong. Again, and let's not start this again, it all comes down to "what do you base your beliefs on". The Morality thread has my statements, I will not respond to anything of that sort on this thread.

Your statements in that thread were basically, "I'm right because some dudes a thousand+ years ago claimed to be channeling God when they wrote some books". Why did you choose Christianity over Islam or Mormonism then?

It's like Navaros, but without the compelling arguments...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The right to refuse service is not as black and white as you think it is, see segregation. Refusing service because of traits people are born with(gender, race, sexuality) ....

So far, we do not have definitive research that suggests that sexuality is genetically determined. Prima facie, I tend to agree with you -- it strikes me as vanishingly unlikely that there would not be a genetic component/predisposition (why would people choose social ostracism etc. over the centuries if it was truly a "choice?"), but we lack that final study that confirms it.

So far, same sex marriage has been successfully in the courts by asserting that the government should have no role in limiting who I choose to marry unless some form of clear and scientifically confirmable danger (e.g. incest between close relatives) exists. It has also been argued that offering "civil unions" smacks of the separate but equal hogwash associated with Jim Crow laws.

[HoreTore]

So far, we do not have definitive research that suggests that sexuality is genetically determined. Prima facie, I tend to agree with you -- it strikes me as vanishingly unlikely that there would not be a genetic component/predisposition (why would people choose social ostracism etc. over the centuries if it was truly a "choice?"), but we lack that final study that confirms it.

It is my understanding that the US legal system treats sexuality as equal to gender and race(because of, basically, 'born this way'). I didn't attempt to start a scientific debate, I only wanted to state what it is in the eyes of the law.

[HoreTore]

Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Constitution, and by the Constitution, that means it is up to the states or people to decide. Again, our founding fathers executed homosexuals, so their rights were not in consideration. And supporting same-sex (not gay) marriage violates a tenet of the Christian religion that America was founded on.

SCOTUS decisions suggest otherwise.

As for the 'founding fathers'(who are quite irrelevant), they also had slaves. According to your logic, this means slavery must be legal in the US.

They are welcome to ignore me

No, they are not. They cannot ignore you if you create a law saying they cannot act against your opinion. I have no problems if you want to scream at the top of your lungs that doing it in the buttocks is a sin, but you should not be able to convert your opinion into laws restricting the freedom of those who do enjoy doing it in the buttocks.

By the way, your English is good, are you actually Norwegian, or and English-speaker who happens to be in Norway?

I'm fully inbred Norwegian, and my English (as well as my Norwegian) is crap.

English is taught from an early age in Scandinavia.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And it is a choice to commit adultery and idolatry and so on. Would you also like to refuse other sinners service or why would you single out homosexuals?

I don't think anybody here is advocating refusing to serve homosexuals in general, I think Vincent was referring to a specific case where a baker was asked to bake a cake with a message on it celebrating a homosexual wedding.

To run with your analogy, this would be like asking a baker to bake a cake with icing on it to say, "Happy Divorce!", or "To my lovely mistress, you are so much nicer than my wife!".

[Husar]

You say that as if gender wasn't a clear cut thing.

There is a extremely small amount of persons with bodily dysfunctions, some even get caught in the middle phase. But by and large, men know they are men and women know they are women.

So to be even more precise, gender indeed is a clear cut thing, but genetics makes mistakes at times. That does not, however, change the basic premises of genders?

So the baker would happily bake a cake for two straight transgenders who are going to marry?
Maybe my assumption that he probably wouldn't was wrong, it's not like some christians would call them freaks after all...

Um…yeah. You are either a male or female. Or a freak, if there is such a thing as a human hermaphrodite. What are we, Hutts?

Oh, woops...

Oh and Facebook and a few others disagree with there being only two genders: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_2513448...entity-options

Well, everybody is a sinner (including myself), so if I looked at sin, I could't serve anybody. Now if they wanted a cake, in this example, for say a graduation or birthday party, no problem, provided it's not a homosexually-themed product. But a same-sex wedding, forget it. And they could go somewhere else. Live and let live, right? I don't have to support their lifestyle, they don't have to support my business.

So if a single mother who was never married wanted to buy a station wagon from you, would you also refuse that because you do not want to support her lifestyle?

I don't think anybody here is advocating refusing to serve homosexuals in general, I think Vincent was referring to a specific case where a baker was asked to bake a cake with a message on it celebrating a homosexual wedding.

To run with your analogy, this would be like asking a baker to bake a cake with icing on it to say, "Happy Divorce!", or "To my lovely mistress, you are so much nicer than my wife!".

Yes, and he could put a chick tract into the box that explains how homosexuals end up in hell, I'm not quite sure why writing that text is somehow a big problem for him. I could see the point if someone wanted to buy a weapon but a text on a cake is pretty harmless and plenty of other things people buy are used for sinful activities, like the guy who buys cupcakes to eat them from the belly of his mistress. Just because there is not an obvious text there is no reason to think it's not going to be used in sinful ways. If the customer is honest about it he can say that he disagrees with what the customer is going to do, it's probably a more helpful approach and more in the spirit of evangelizing than to repel and alienate the customer. And maybe the customers would then leave on their own if they don't want to hear about that.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I know it will draw ire mentioning I saw it on Fox News.
.

I do not accept fox news as a legitimate source any more than WND, MSNBC, and their ilk. Find better sources for your life.

[Hooahguy]

Just about everybody was against homosexuality, so there was no need to mention opposition to it. In what culture other than now has it been tolerated?

Well, the Romans and Greeks were clearly not against it. In fact to my knowledge, most cultures in the Antiquity tolerated it. It was the spread of Christianity which changed all that.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Constitution, and by the Constitution, that means it is up to the states or people to decide.

Apparently the 14th amendment is not part of the Constitution. See when the only text you read is the Bible, you kind of come across as stupid.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I know it will draw ire mentioning I saw it on Fox News.

Actually, Fox news -- just the news broadcast -- has a good reputation. Fox and friends, Hannity, O'Reilly etc. airing on the Fox News channel draw a lot more flack.

Um…yeah. You are either a male or female. Or a freak, if there is such a thing as a human hermaphrodite. What are we, Hutts?

You are confusing sex and gender.

Sex is one's biological equipage and is determined, for the most part, by the hormonal influences enacted by the 23rd chromosome (X or Y) pairing. The vast majority of persons are either male or female, though rare intersex (newer term for hermaphroditism and other analogous genetic conditions) individuals are born.

Gender is one's psychological orientation -- your own mental outlook -- on how you enact and express yourself with others. As with any psychological orientation, it draws some of its "roots" from hard-coded genetic information but is far more malleable and influenced by culture, creed, and the influence of significant persons in our lives.

Most people, of course, conceive of themselves as men or women and enact their gender in a fashion that is largely parallel to the traditional notions of gender associated with biological sex.

It should be noted, however, that this "enacted gender" is inevitably idiosyncratic. Everybody is different. It is fairly common, for example, for women to have a communication style that is stereotypically 'male' -- forceful and direct, little effort to focus on underlying feelings/motivations and to preference action -- while being no less stereotypically 'female' on a host of other issues such as child nurture, risk aversion, etc.

Sex is fairly "clear cut," but gender is not.

[Montmorency]

From some gender studies book whose introduction I once skimmed: 'Masculinity is not "what men do".'

Indeed, it is simply 'what men should do that is also somehow uniquely or intrinsically a male action'. Now you should begin to see the problem, or at least the limitations.

[Husar]

Apparently the 14th amendment is not part of the Constitution. See when the only text you read is the Bible*, you kind of come across as stupid.

*and the Art of War

[Beskar]

This one is more related to how sexism affects males, which is interesting as it shows you the difference between gender and sex in a way too, I'll post it in spoiler.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[rory_20_uk]

In mammals and especially primates the rate limiting step in having more primates is the females. They can carry only a few at a time and that is for a long time. The young are very delicate.

So, every female that is lost has a significant impact on the reproductive rate of the group. Keeping them safe especially when pregnant and vunerable.

Males, on the other hand, are close to expendible - one male can fertilise a large group of females at almost no cost to themselves.

So assuming at the world isn't all nice and fluffy, men are required to undertake three roles: ensure that all fertile women are pregnant (suckling is birth control, as soon as they're on solids, time for another one), provide food and kill any threat whether perceived or real.

Women are good with empathy and reading body language in others - seeing and reading the group dynamic. Massive muscles aren't really helpful and so are not present - save the protien for the next generation, eh? Oh, and looking fertile helps, too since men can pick up on the phenotype which is a surrogate marker for sexual maturity, not the chronological age of a female.

Males then have evolved to be highly interested in sex, a low threshold for the phenotype partners (as long as fertile) and with a high demand for situations that provide excitement / aggression. The need for "empathy" is mainly linked to enjoying the screwing of the former and the killing of the latter - introspection along the lines of "but how do I make the external threat feel" is not something that leads to many descendants, whereas "good, it's dead - now what else can I kill or screw" is more likely to get both - and is almost the thought process that goes on at weekends outside many clubs in the UK.

That is of course changing, but unsurprisingly children especially have not had millions of years of programming taken out of them and so will instinctively pick on those who display traits that were not linked to success.

Many cultures are adapting to this new world, but the pace of change that is required is great. Cultures take longer to alter, and are doing so at different rates - ranging from acceptance through illegality to state sanctioned murder.

[HoreTore]

Instinctively?

Do humans have instincts?

[Greyblades]

None strong enough to excuse being an offensive dolt.

[HoreTore]

None

Correct.

We have reflexes and we have drives, but we do not have instincts. We use our brains instead, and we do make decisions.

[rory_20_uk]

A vast amount of published, peer reviewed literature disagrees with you.

[HoreTore]

A vast amount of published, peer reviewed literature disagrees with you.

Yes, pre-70's published, peer reviewed literature.

After the 70's tough, instinct has been abandoned as a meaningful term in psychology.

EDIT: You will still find the term used in other branches of science though, but that's just sloppy use of terminology, like the butchering of physics terms common in social science.

[rory_20_uk]

One from 2014

Lots and lots in all sorts of fields in google scholar. Clearly not such a passe term.

[HoreTore]

One from 2014

Lots and lots in all sorts of fields in google scholar. Clearly not such a passe term.

Uhm....

Where does that paper argue for the existence of human instinct...? It mentions the "instinct for improvement"... Human development is most certainly something one can tamper with(like the desire to run away when panicking). An instinct cannot be tampered with. Clearly a sloppy use of the term.

[Kadagar_AV]

One from 2014

Lots and lots in all sorts of fields in google scholar. Clearly not such a passe term.

Humans have instincts, of course. Protecting a baby as an example, is an instinct.

Instincts can be changed though. I just have to look at my dog - when he sees a rabbit his instincts kicks in and he goes into hunter mode. On a command from me his training kicks in and he stands down.

Might be that some psychologists have changed the terms, but without a degree in psychology one are quite safe to talk about instincts.

[HoreTore]

Humans have instincts, of course. Protecting a baby as an example, is an instinct.

Instincts can be changed though. I just have to look at my dog - when he sees a rabbit his instincts kicks in and he goes into hunter mode. On a command from me his training kicks in and he stands down.

You're talking about strong drives.

The psychological definition of instints is behaviour that cannot be changed. Anything that can be changed is a drive. Humans have evolved beyond instincts, and we have a thought process(conscious or unconscious) before we do the things you believe to be an instinct. Protecting an infant definitely involve a decision to be made, and we often make the decision not to protect said infant. This would not have happened if it was an instinct.

EDIT: Basically, the more complex a creatures neural system is, the less instinctive behavior it will have. The reason is evolutional, it is clearly preferable not to have instincts, as these force actions. Being able to make a decision means you can adapt your actions, and the advanced neural system allows you to make a decision. Humans, having developed an extremely complex neural system, has evolved away from instincts.

[rory_20_uk]

OK... let's choose a simple ones:

Babies suckling when their cheek is brushed.
Babies grasping when something is placed into their hand.

[HoreTore]

OK... let's choose a simple ones:

Babies suckling when their cheek is brushed.
Babies grasping when something is placed into their hand.

That's called a primitive reflex.

A baby turtle heading for the sea as soon as it's born is an instinct.


Babies start searching when their cheek is brushed btw, they start suckling when their mouth is touched.

[Montmorency]

By the same token, there's no need to call adaptive motor-planning "decision-making", as the concept denoted is a hallmark of outdated mentalism, and it consists of some sort of ethereal discontinuity within the process that simply does not exist.

[Husar]

You're talking about strong drives.

The psychological definition of instints is behaviour that cannot be changed. Anything that can be changed is a drive. Humans have evolved beyond instincts, and we have a thought process(conscious or unconscious) before we do the things you believe to be an instinct. Protecting an infant definitely involve a decision to be made, and we often make the decision not to protect said infant. This would not have happened if it was an instinct.

EDIT: Basically, the more complex a creatures neural system is, the less instinctive behavior it will have. The reason is evolutional, it is clearly preferable not to have instincts, as these force actions. Being able to make a decision means you can adapt your actions, and the advanced neural system allows you to make a decision. Humans, having developed an extremely complex neural system, has evolved away from instincts.

Decisions are myth anyway, you should upgrade you knowledge on that subject and read Montmorency's thread about the Blind Brain Theory, which explains that decisions are just our TTBS fooling itself to think it could change anything about the inevitable output that is merely a predetermined result of the input we got.

Edit: I see Monty himself was faster.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well spank my butt and call me Sally. You all is PHEE-losso-fizin'!!!!!

[Brenus]

“Sexual orientation, yes, I can” So why don’t you have a go? If you don’t mind the idea of kissing a man, having sex with a man, as it is a choice, why don’t you try?

“Again, our founding fathers executed homosexuals” Wow, and I thought they were nice people, enlightened people… Hey, the Roman Emperors were given Christians to the lions (allegedly), so can we carry on doing it? Or put them on a cross?

“In what culture other than now has it been tolerated”: Ancient Rome (i.e. Julius Caesar being the man of all women and woman of all men), Greece (i.e. Theban Holly Battalion), Monsieur Frere du Roi, Louis the XIV’s brother being openly gay, Henry the III, King of France, openly gay, etc…

[rory_20_uk]

That's called a primitive reflex.

A baby turtle heading for the sea as soon as it's born is an instinct.


Babies start searching when their cheek is brushed btw, they start suckling when their mouth is touched.

Now this has entered the world of semantics.