…a distinction that many liberals seem unable or unwilling to make…Is it possible liberals understand the distinction and still reject it? It is o.k. that you are you, just try not to behave like you.
The problem is that we're talking about people predicting the behaviors of others. It's not enough that someone rejects the distinction; they also have to reject the possibility that others accept the distinction and hold views based on the distinction.
The distinction is also not unreasonable for Christians. A common part of the Christian paradigm on temptation and sin is that all human beings have instincts and desires that need to be controlled and denied satisfaction -- especially with regard to sexual attraction. Whether your instincts attract you to adult men, adult women, children, or something else, chances are that the vast majority of those instincts are to be suppressed in obedience to Christ (with only a single, lifelong voluntary heterosexual partner of appropriate belief system, age range, legal status, and cultural acknowledgement providing a potential outlet for a few of them).With regard to sexual expressions of all kinds, there's a serious disconnect between mainstream thought (it's core to your identity to fulfill your sexual instincts) and Christian thought (it's core to your identity to deny the flesh and exalt the spirit instead). This disconnect even expresses itself in a disconnect of terminology, where under certain cultural assumptions sexual attraction and sexual practices are conflated. To someone who believes in being tempted but not sinning, that desires should not control behavior, this distinction is critical.
…a distinction that many liberals seem unable or unwilling to make…Is it possible liberals understand the distinction and still reject it? It is o.k. that you are you, just try not to behave like you.The problem is that we're talking about people predicting the behaviors of others. It's not enough that someone rejects the distinction; they also have to reject the possibility that others accept the distinction and hold views based on the distinction.
The distinction is also not unreasonable for Christians. A common part of the Christian paradigm on temptation and sin is that all human beings have instincts and desires that need to be controlled and denied satisfaction -- especially with regard to sexual attraction. Whether your instincts attract you to adult men, adult women, children, or something else, chances are that the vast majority of those instincts are to be suppressed in obedience to Christ (with only a single, lifelong voluntary heterosexual partner of appropriate belief system, age range, legal status, and cultural acknowledgement providing a potential outlet for a few of them).
With regard to sexual expressions of all kinds, there's a serious disconnect between mainstream thought (it's core to your identity to fulfill your sexual instincts) and Christian thought (it's core to your identity to deny the flesh and exalt the spirit instead). This disconnect even expresses itself in a disconnect of terminology, where under certain cultural assumptions sexual attraction and sexual practices are conflated. To someone who believes in being tempted but not sinning, that desires should not control behavior, this distinction is critical.
That's a great description, which provides clear internal consistency for any particular Christian. Understanding it, though, brings me for on no closer to understanding why the said Christian then feels the need to impose those same standards on others through force of government.
Really? AvalonXQ's shot at liberals was aok?
I also don't feel that what I said was a "shot" -- I was pointing out what I perceive as a seeming unwillingness to recognize a distinction that explains why a characterization made of a group was most likely inaccurate.
Still, if you saw it as a personal attack, I apologize.
That's a great description, which provides internal consistency for a particular Christian. Understanding it, though, brings me for on no closer to understanding why the said Christian then feels the need to impose those same standards on others through force of government.
Many individuals, both Christian and not, believe that the law should recognize what is immoral and prohibit what is immoral. While the Bible and basic Christian doctrine itself doesn't seem to support this view, it does explain the motivations of many people on both sides of a lot of issues. After all, when it comes to debating legislation, very few manage to get off without moralizing the issues.
|
Ok religious view on Eugenics. But lets be clear there are 2 types of eugenics.
1) Removing negative traits such as diseases like Celiac disease or Haemophelia.
2)Adding positive traits in, trying to make physically superior beings such as increased muscle mass, or bone density etc, etc.
Regardless of what people say (including the Pope), I don't know if there technically is one. Are we really "playing God" any more than we would if we take an asprin to take care of a headache?
For my position (and I will readily admit my knowledge of this subject is rather limited) my issue is where or how are we getting the research from. I feel that creating a baby to experiment on it is just as wrong as experimenting on a natural baby. We are more than just animals and especially a baby (or younger?) has no ability to represent itself to say 'no'. So, I guess that bothers me. Outside of that, I don't see it much different than most other medicine. So if we are getting our information/research from babies or living fetuses (or are killing babies and/or fetuses strictly for such research), I feel that is wrong. The research itself or the applications of such research? Don't know that I have much of an opinion on it. Eliminating disease and better healing practices? Great. Creating "Kahn"? Have mixed feelings -- but not really related to spiritual issues.
Also, I do know a couple of Christian scientists who are working (or have worked) directly in this field. And I know that they have to wrestle with the moral implications that this area of study throws at them.
Ok religious view on Eugenics. But lets be clear there are 2 types of eugenics.
1) Removing negative traits such as diseases like Celiac disease or Haemophelia.
2)Adding positive traits in, trying to make physically superior beings such as increased muscle mass, or bone density etc, etc.
1)Is for making life better for the common person.
2)Is for making super soldiers designed for fighting a coalition of aliens bent on the destruction of humanity known as the covenant.
I will lend my personal view to the GE discussion -- I'm strongly pro-science, and I'm looking forward to being able to add in positive traits to children to make them smarter and stronger. I really don't have any moral or religious objection to it at all.
|
Ok religious view on Eugenics. But lets be clear there are 2 types of eugenics.
1) Removing negative traits such as diseases like Celiac disease or Haemophelia.
2)Adding positive traits in, trying to make physically superior beings such as increased muscle mass, or bone density etc, etc.
Somebody has been reading their Habermas! Kudos!
|
Ok religious view on Eugenics. But lets be clear there are 2 types of eugenics.
1) Removing negative traits such as diseases like Celiac disease or Haemophelia.
2)Adding positive traits in, trying to make physically superior beings such as increased muscle mass, or bone density etc, etc.Regardless of what people say (including the Pope), I don't know if there technically is one. Are we really "playing God" any more than we would if we take an asprin to take care of a headache?
For my position (and I will readily admit my knowledge of this subject is rather limited) my issue is where or how are we getting the research from. I feel that creating a baby to experiment on it is just as wrong as experimenting on a natural baby. We are more than just animals and especially a baby (or younger?) has no ability to represent itself to say 'no'. So, I guess that bothers me. Outside of that, I don't see it much different than most other medicine. So if we are getting our information/research from babies or living fetuses (or are killing babies and/or fetuses strictly for such research), I feel that is wrong. The research itself or the applications of such research? Don't know that I have much of an opinion on it. Eliminating disease and better healing practices? Great. Creating "Kahn"? Have mixed feelings -- but not really related to spiritual issues.
Also, I do know a couple of Christian scientists who are working (or have worked) directly in this field. And I know that they have to wrestle with the moral implications that this area of study throws at them.
Moff I may be able to help demystify part of this. How to accomplish Type 1 Eugenics. First step is research into identify the genes responsible for the defect that causes the disease. This is where we are at now, in fact my PHD research is looking into potential genetic causes of autism. This is mostly done by dissecting cadavers and taking tissue samples. There are other methods but this is where i will be getting my info. Part 2 this is where we are mostly working on conjecture, there are a few schools of thought on how to accomplish removing genetic disease. First the fetus will almost certainly have to be in vitro fertilized, (at least starting out). There are theories on cloning specific gene sequences from a next of kin (preferably a full blood sibling or failing that a parent) then the removal of the faulty gene sequence replacing it with the healthy gene sequence from the next of kin. There's still a long way to go on it, but I only presented one line of theory toward eugenics. But I will tell you we are quite quickly finishing step 1.
|
|
Somebody has been reading their Habermas! Kudos!Ok religious view on Eugenics. But lets be clear there are 2 types of eugenics.
1) Removing negative traits such as diseases like Celiac disease or Haemophelia.
2)Adding positive traits in, trying to make physically superior beings such as increased muscle mass, or bone density etc, etc.
I'm running out of reading material so sue me :P
I have a rather pat response, which has worked well amongst my religious friends: "Anyone who characterizes [emerging technology] as 'playing God' believes in a God a LOT less powerful than the one I worship."
I don’t know, I’m all for making sure my kid is healthy, but I don’t think I’d be comfortable picking and choosing all of his/her traits. I personally don’t think having a kid should be like making a build-a-bear. However, this is how I feel towards myself having children, and the decision is a personal matter between the person I’m having this child with and myself, and I in no way feel that the law should make everyone conform to my way of thinking.
I would not have any problem with the Christian right if they took this approach to life. Instead their response usually seems to be “I don’t think I’m comfortable with that, so it should be made illegal.”
I have a rather pat response, which has worked well amongst my religious friends: "Anyone who characterizes [emerging technology] as 'playing God' believes in a God a LOT less powerful than the one I worship."
Heh. Reminds me of my favorite saying:
"He who claims to know the mind of God
is engaged in the Devil's work."
I don’t know, I’m all for making sure my kid is healthy, but I don’t think I’d be comfortable picking and choosing all of his/her traits. I personally don’t think having a kid should be like making a build-a-bear.
Very few good parents will leave the details of their childrens' upbringing to chance. You choose what shows they can watch and books they can read, you decide what foods they eat, you have some say in their education and you make health choices for them. And I feel that parents who do none of these things, who just throw up their hands and let their children do whatever, are not being as good parents as they should.
If we agree, then, that aspects of a child's upbringing should not be left predominantly to chance, then why should their genetics? It seems as me just as irresponsible not to make a conscious selection regarding your kids' genetic profile as it is irresponsible not to make any conscious decisions about a child's education and discipline. The only difference is that, traditionally, we've had no choice to select our child's genome. I think if it's an option, it's something that good parents will do.
I don’t know, I’m all for making sure my kid is healthy, but I don’t think I’d be comfortable picking and choosing all of his/her traits. I personally don’t think having a kid should be like making a build-a-bear.Very few good parents will leave the details of their childrens' upbringing to chance. You choose what shows they can watch and books they can read, you decide what foods they eat, you have some say in their education and you make health choices for them. And I feel that parents who do none of these things, who just throw up their hands and let their children do whatever, are not being as good parents as they should.
If we agree, then, that aspects of a child's upbringing should not be left predominantly to chance, then why should their genetics? It seems as me just as irresponsible not to make a conscious selection regarding your kids' genetic profile as it is irresponsible not to make any conscious decisions about a child's education and discipline. The only difference is that, traditionally, we've had no choice to select our child's genome. I think if it's an option, it's something that good parents will do.
You are welcome to your opinion, and also welcome to do whatever you want to your kids. I however, disagree with your position. As it seems that by your logic parents should currently be taking their kids into plastic surgery as soon as they are able to make their children look as they want them to.
|
|
Moff I may be able to help demystify part of this.
Doubtful -- but thanks for trying. (I don't really have the foundation to understand a lot of it.)
I know (but could be wrong) that a lot of genetic research surrounds stem cell research and that a lot of that research revolves around how embryos form and when and so on. Much more than that and I feel that a lot of the information floating around out there is either half information or outright misinformation and have to filter it as best my limited knowledge of the subject can.
Very few good parents will leave the details of their childrens' upbringing to chance. You choose what shows they can watch and books they can read, you decide what foods they eat, you have some say in their education and you make health choices for them. And I feel that parents who do none of these things, who just throw up their hands and let their children do whatever, are not being as good parents as they should. If we agree, then, that aspects of a child's upbringing should not be left predominantly to chance, then why should their genetics?
Ugh. Personally, I think kids need room to make mistakes so they can learn from them. Parenting is in making sure they reflect and learn appropriate lessons. Keeping children in controlled, sterile conditions prevents any lessons but pre-packaged ones from which, in my opinion, they learn the least.
With genetics, though, an individual doesn't learn, or get a second chance. It's got to be done up-front. So I'd agree with your stance on eliminating genetic diseases, even though I disagree with your philosophy of child-rearing.
|
|
Very few good parents will leave the details of their childrens' upbringing to chance. You choose what shows they can watch and books they can read, you decide what foods they eat, you have some say in their education and you make health choices for them. And I feel that parents who do none of these things, who just throw up their hands and let their children do whatever, are not being as good parents as they should. If we agree, then, that aspects of a child's upbringing should not be left predominantly to chance, then why should their genetics?Ugh. Personally, I think kids need room to make mistakes so they can learn from them. Parenting is in making sure they reflect and learn appropriate lessons. Keeping children in controlled, sterile conditions prevents any lessons but pre-packaged ones from which, in my opinion, they learn the least.
I agreed with that until I had Arwen. You'd be amazed how quickly theory changes when it becomes reality...
|
|
I don’t know, I’m all for making sure my kid is healthy, but I don’t think I’d be comfortable picking and choosing all of his/her traits. I personally don’t think having a kid should be like making a build-a-bear.Very few good parents will leave the details of their childrens' upbringing to chance. You choose what shows they can watch and books they can read, you decide what foods they eat, you have some say in their education and you make health choices for them. And I feel that parents who do none of these things, who just throw up their hands and let their children do whatever, are not being as good parents as they should.
If we agree, then, that aspects of a child's upbringing should not be left predominantly to chance, then why should their genetics? It seems as me just as irresponsible not to make a conscious selection regarding your kids' genetic profile as it is irresponsible not to make any conscious decisions about a child's education and discipline. The only difference is that, traditionally, we've had no choice to select our child's genome. I think if it's an option, it's something that good parents will do.
Hmmm. I don't think that this follows.
There is parenting and then there are genetics. If my child is genetically predisposed to being stronger and I never take him to the gym -- and granted, I'm not a scientist -- but I would find it hard to believe that the child would end up very strong. If my child was genetically predisposed to being smarter and all he did was play Halo 12 hours a day, I would find it hard to believe that the increased intelligence would show at all.
Choosing something like a person's eye color doesn't really change much outside of demonstrating that the parent wanted something that their child isn't. And really isn't any different than dying our hair or wearing colored contacts. Finding a way for a child to have 20/20 vision for their entire life without worrying about cataracts (sp?) -- I think that a lot of people would go for that.
Although, after teaching for a few years, I really feel that good parenting has as much (or more) to do with intelligence or physical aptitude than genetics.
You are welcome to your opinion, and also welcome to do whatever you want to your kids.
I agree with the libertarian aspect of this; I don't think the government should interfere either way.
I however, disagree with your position. As it seems that by your logic parents should currently be taking their kids into plastic surgery as soon as they are able to make their children look as they want them to.
And the logical extreme of rejecting this position is that parents should ask a grocer to randomly fill grocery bags with his products and feed their kids whatever comes out first.
You would reject plastic surgery, I suspect, because it's expensive and risky -- but other things that parents do to artificially enhance their childrens' appearance, like dressing them in clean well-made clothes, washing their faces, and keeping their hair cut according to societal preferences is seen as pretty basic to good parenting. Straightening teeth also occurs far more often than medical concerns would dictate.If plastic surgery ever becomes as convenient and inexpensive as styling one's hair, I suspect you'll find it becomes just about as frequent.
And if genetic profiling and tweaking becomes a normal part of obstetric consultation, I suspect most parents will begin to make some "Type 2" selections.
Choosing something like a person's eye color doesn't really change much outside of demonstrating that the parent wanted something that their child isn't.
Here's where I feel a hidden assumption has crept in. What is sacred about the random lottery of genetics that determines what a child "is" or "isn't"? If your child has blue eyes from the genetic code resulting from a random meeting of unsorted sperm and egg, and my child has blue eyes because we inserted a pre-written genetic code including this trait, on what basis do you claim that your child "really has" blue eyes and my child "really doesn't"?
If I'm wearing a blue shirt to work, does it matter whether I selected it from my closet on purpose or closed my eyes and pulled one out at random? Is one more "real" than the other?|
|
Choosing something like a person's eye color doesn't really change much outside of demonstrating that the parent wanted something that their child isn't.Here's where I feel a hidden assumption has crept in. What is sacred about the random lottery of genetics that determines what a child "is" or "isn't"? If your child has blue eyes from the genetic code resulting from a random meeting of unsorted sperm and egg, and my child has blue eyes because we inserted a pre-written genetic code including this trait, on what basis do you claim that your child "really has" blue eyes and my child "really doesn't"?
If I'm wearing a blue shirt to work, does it matter whether I selected it from my closet on purpose or closed my eyes and pulled one out at random? Is one more "real" than the other?
I think that we are closer on this than you think. I don't really have a problem with this other than it seems to scream to me that there are other issues with vanity. We've already got enough issues with the media telling us what "right" is or what "beautiful" is. And it seems to change quickly. So if 2009, the "in style" is for all babies to have blue eyes and then in ten years only children with gray eyes are part of the "in crowd", what's a child to do then?
Personally, I'll let fate (or if you prefer, "God") decide my child's eye color. But don't see much wrong with others feeling that they need to choose.
Barring unforseen side effects, engineer away. Why should anyone have a problem with making people healtheir, smarter, etc.? I don't get it.
Of course, I understand that in practice, unforseen side effects are a concern, but that hardly seems to be the basis of most objections.
|
|
Barring unforseen side effects, engineer away. Why should anyone have a problem with making people healtheir, smarter, etc.? I don't get it.
Or now with blue hair?
I feel that the "problem" is the cost. If the only cost is money -- fine. If the cost is a million healthy babies -- well that brings in other questions and issues.
You'd be amazed how quickly theory changes when it becomes reality...
Depends on whether said theiry is actually based on observation of reality, or whether it's based on random whim. I agree that most parents are hyperprotective -- that's instinctive -- but that doesn't mean they couldn't stand to back off a bit sometimes, when the kid(s) are old enough to learn through experience (Arwen currently is not, so you need to be protective).
Personally, I'll let fate (or if you prefer, "God") decide my child's eye color.
And I consider you to have "chosen" your kid's eye color just as much as I did when I said "blue" -- except that you decided to throw a die roll into your choice rather than making a conscious decision. It doesn't make you any less culpable for the result, or grant a spin on the color wheel any moral advantage over eyes-wide-open decision making.
Calling it either "fate" or "God" is an attempt to evade responsibility. It's randomness, pure and simple -- and the result is still your choice.|
|
Barring unforseen side effects, engineer away. Why should anyone have a problem with making people healtheir, smarter, etc.? I don't get it.
Of course, I understand that in practice, unforseen side effects are a concern, but that hardly seems to be the basis of most objections.
As long as it remains generic, I don't think I see a problem with it. When people are purposefully created to fulfill a specific role in society, say the worlds greatest jockey, then we enter an area where people have effective reduced life choice. It's easier to be that jockey than it would be to have many other jobs due to a reduced stature. This makes his identity "jockey" over anything else.
It's a lot like the Amish communities. You can try to live outside of the community, but most end up coming back because it is easier for them. They have an identity as Amish as well, though.
Now, I'm not saying that there couldn't be solutions to this problem of identity. However, engineering roles through genetics does create problems that we would have to be willing to deal with. The issue would be how we plan on dealing with them.
However, Negative Eugenics* is going to begin separating us into have/have-nots regardless of whether we use Positive Eugenics. Some people are going to chose to avoid utilizing genetic engineering, while others will have access to it, and others still will want it but not be able to afford it. We must be willing to deal with this at the societal level when this becomes an option. Should we really allow others to improve themselves so much more than others just because they can afford it?
*Negative Eugenics describes genetic engineering meant to remove genetic issues such as disease, while Positive Eugenics describes adding new traits. The terms are mathematical here, not meant to describe the benefits at all. Just felt this needed to be clarified.
|
|
Calling it either "fate" or "God" is an attempt to evade responsibility. It's randomness, pure and simple -- and the result is still your choice.
I can't agree with this enough.
One of my pet peeves is, when something horrible happens, the religious are quick to throw about phrases like "it was god's will" or "god is testing me," yet when something good happens those same people are much less likely to use the same logic. Of course there will be those who do but according to my observations, they are in the minority.
|
|
It doesn't make you any less culpable for the result, or grant a spin on the color wheel any moral advantage over eyes-wide-open decision making.
Nor did I mean to imply that. Especially considering you didn't include the part of what you quoted where I specifically said that there wasn't anything wrong with others feeling that they should choose.
The whole thing with genetic eyes started because of your response to what The Prince that Howls said about "build a baby" with regard to eye color and so on.
If we agree, then, that aspects of a child's upbringing should not be left predominantly to chance, then why should their genetics?
The PtH even said that he didn't feel comfortable choosing all a child's traits. Something I took to mean things like hair color as opposed to a child without disease. But then you came on and implied that any parent that didn't participate in all decisions about a child's genetic makeup was a poor parent.
I'm not making a moral case about eye color, but it seems like you are.
Personally, I'll let fate (or if you prefer, "God") decide my child's eye color.And I consider you to have "chosen" your kid's eye color just as much as I did when I said "blue" -- except that you decided to throw a die roll into your choice rather than making a conscious decision.
Damn strait I roll the dice. I’m a gamer, that’s what I do. Life just doesn’t seem as fun to me when you pre-determine everything to have the outcome you desire. I mean, isn’t that why we’re all Paizo customers (and if you’re not why the hell are you here)? If we didn’t love chance and uncertainty in our lives wouldn’t we be much happier just writing up short stories of what our characters do instead of playing a game where the roll of the dice decides everything?
And while I’m certainly not willing to leave my child’s health to chance I do not see the harm in letting the dice land where they may so to speak when it comes to my child’s superficial features.
I mean, isn’t that why we’re all Paizo customers (and if you’re not why the hell are you here)?
O.k. I'll leave now.
You choose what shows they can watch and books they can read.
Just wanted to point out my parents never limited which books I can read. And they certainly didn't choose them for me. If I only read the books my parents gave for me to read I sure as hell wouldn’t be on a RPG publisher’s site right now. My parents did their best to keep me from doing anything that would cause myself harm (or them from going insane), but other than that they let me be my own person.
I think that if everyone micromanaged their children the way you seem to be advocating the world might be more orderly, but it would be missing out on many unique individuals.
Just wanted to point out my parents never limited which books I can read.
If at eight years old your parents would have had no problem with you reading Piers Anthony's Firefly, I have a problem with that.
But I'm not talking about a parent selecting each book and show the child reads and watches and when; I'm talking about a parent knowing what's on a child's bookshelf and in a child's Netflix account and being willing/able to say "You're five; Dead Alive isn't an appropriate movie for you to watch yet. Let's save Cube2: Hypercube till you're a little older, okay?"
I don’t know, I’m all for making sure my kid is healthy, but I don’t think I’d be comfortable picking and choosing all of his/her traits. I personally don’t think having a kid should be like making a build-a-bear. However, this is how I feel towards myself having children, and the decision is a personal matter between the person I’m having this child with and myself, and I in no way feel that the law should make everyone conform to my way of thinking.
Which is fine and dandy up until the point when genetically engineering children becomes standard issue. At that point you have the 'choice' to naturally bring a frail ugly stupid and weak creature into a world or Roman Gods. But actually doing so would be cruel and unusual punishment on your progeny and I doubt they'll forgive you when you try and explain that you did this to them because it was the 'moral' thing to do.
In effect - by the time its a legitimate choice for parents its not really much of a choice anymore at all.
I don’t know, I’m all for making sure my kid is healthy, but I don’t think I’d be comfortable picking and choosing all of his/her traits. I personally don’t think having a kid should be like making a build-a-bear. However, this is how I feel towards myself having children, and the decision is a personal matter between the person I’m having this child with and myself, and I in no way feel that the law should make everyone conform to my way of thinking.
Which is fine and dandy up until the point when genetically engineering children becomes standard issue. At that point you have the 'choice' to naturally bring a frail ugly stupid and weak creature into a world or Roman Gods. But actually doing so would be cruel and unusual punishment on your progeny and I doubt they'll forgive you when you try and explain that you did this to them because it was the 'moral' thing to do.
In effect - by the time its a legitimate choice for parents its not really much of a choice anymore at all.
|
|
You'd be amazed how quickly theory changes when it becomes reality...Depends on whether said theiry is actually based on observation of reality, or whether it's based on random whim. I agree that most parents are hyperprotective -- that's instinctive -- but that doesn't mean they couldn't stand to back off a bit sometimes, when the kid(s) are old enough to learn through experience (Arwen currently is not, so you need to be protective).
I'm saying there are some experiences that I've already experienced that I think I should discourage Arwen from experiencing herself. I have no problem with bruised knees and whatnot, but I think I may draw the line at [insert all kinds of stuff I really didn't need to experience].
You choose what shows they can watch and books they can read.Just wanted to point out my parents never limited which books I can read. And they certainly didn't choose them for me. If I only read the books my parents gave for me to read I sure as hell wouldn’t be on a RPG publisher’s site right now. My parents did their best to keep me from doing anything that would cause myself harm (or them from going insane), but other than that they let me be my own person.
That's more or less what mine did. I am aware that they knew, at least in general terms, what I was reading. But they lost interest in keeping track pretty quickly. I don't recall ever having a talk with them about things I could or could not read.
Only once was my TV viewing an issue. I was watching a comedy special on an HBO free preview. My father came in and told me not to watch it, left, came back ten minutes later and more or less told me I could watch it if I wanted to and that I should not feel bad if I did want to and was generally embarrassed and apologetic about the whole affair.
But my parents were the kind of parents who had the sex talk when I was eight. Practically as soon as I asked I got answers. They're, thankfully, a far cry from a Christian fundamentalist I once argued with who took great pride in how he was able to better shelter his deaf daughter from the world because she couldn't hear. That was creepy s*~&.
Let's save Cube2: Hypercube till you're a little older, okay?"<tangent> Is that worth picking up? I enjoyed Cube.
I'd recommend watching the rest of the trilogy. They're not amazing but I think if you enjoyed the premise of Cube you'll enjoy seeing the reprises.
|
|
Did anyone see the most recent episode of Glee? I don't watch it, but I read that they addressed some themes of religiosity, and that they could have done a better job of it.
For those that did see it, what did you think?
|
|
Did anyone see the most recent episode of Glee? I don't watch it, but I read that they addressed some themes of religiosity, and that they could have done a better job of it.
For those that did see it, what did you think?
I saw it and liked it. they didn't want to get to heavy into the issue mainly because of network television and stuff. But the episode itself was one of the best so far in my opinion.
I'm saying there are some experiences that I've already experienced that I think I should discourage Arwen from experiencing herself. I have no problem with bruised knees and whatnot, but I think I may draw the line at [insert all kinds of stuff I really didn't need to experience].You'd be amazed how quickly theory changes when it becomes reality...Depends on whether said theiry is actually based on observation of reality, or whether it's based on random whim. I agree that most parents are hyperprotective -- that's instinctive -- but that doesn't mean they couldn't stand to back off a bit sometimes, when the kid(s) are old enough to learn through experience (Arwen currently is not, so you need to be protective).
I suspect her teenage years are going to hard on you. My bet is one of the most frustrating things with parenting, at least parenting teenagers, is you desperately want to pass on some of the wisdom you have gained from all the stupid mistakes you made - sadly they rarely are willing to take such advice at this age.
OK, maybe someone can explain this one to me. I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse; I just don't understand the logic, when the press reports on "militant atheists" (or, in the UK, they'll often go on about "militant secularists"). Richard Dawkins gets called this a lot, which is particularly incomprehensible insofar as he's too skinny and weak to even lift a weapon, much less use one.
When was the last time that Dawkins (or any other "militant atheist" like him) blew up a church, bombed a cafe, hijacked a plane, or whatever? Yes, I know atheists have done these things in the past, and worse -- Stalin and Mao were most definitely militant -- but that's not the point here. Seriously. Richard Dawkins? He's an Oxford professor, not a junta leader! Maybe he hurts people's feelings a bit, but "miltant"?
|
|
OK, maybe someone can explain this one to me. I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse; I just don't understand the logic, when the press reports on "militant atheists" (or, in the UK, they'll often go on about "militant secularists"). Richard Dawkins gets called this a lot, which is particularly incomprehensible insofar as he's too skinny and weak to even lift a weapon, much less use one.
When was the last time that Dawkins (or any other "militant atheist" like him) blew up a church, bombed a cafe, hijacked a plane, or whatever? Yes, I know atheists have done these things in the past, and worse -- Stalin and Mao were most definitely militant -- but that's not the point here. Seriously. Richard Dawkins? He's an Oxford professor, not a junta leader! Maybe he hurts people's feelings a bit, but "miltant"?
My personal opinion: society has finally reached a point that atheists are able to "come out of their closets" so to speak. We no longer just go through the motions (go to church, pray with everyone, etc.), but we actually speak out for equal recognition. This challenge of the status quo makes outspoken atheists militant in the eyes of the majority. (IMO, YMMV, etc.)
This challenge of the status quo makes outspoken atheists militant in the eyes of the majority. (IMO, YMMV, etc.)
The word militant, which is both an adjective and a noun, essentially means 'to be open to using violence to achieve an end'.
THIS is the thing. "Outspoken" is not in any way synonymous with "open to the use of violence." That's a totally false equivalence. Sam Kinnison used to holler and scream on stage, but I never once saw him take a baseball bat to a person's head as part of his skit.
Hell, I've seen plenty of preachers cook up a spirited, hell-and-brimstone sermon. With very good reason, no one calls them "militant" -- because they're not advocating violence, despite a very high degree of outspoken-ness.
So if being outspoken isn't the reason, why, then, the use of the term? Or is it just that vaguely insulting terms are used so loosely they have no meaning at all? "Paizo refuses to make the Magus a full BAB class. They're a bunch of militant Communist satanic baby-torturing game designers."
OK, maybe someone can explain this one to me. I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse; I just don't understand the logic, when the press reports on "militant atheists" (or, in the UK, they'll often go on about "militant secularists"). Richard Dawkins gets called this a lot, which is particularly incomprehensible insofar as he's too skinny and weak to even lift a weapon, much less use one.
When was the last time that Dawkins (or any other "militant atheist" like him) blew up a church, bombed a cafe, hijacked a plane, or whatever? Yes, I know atheists have done these things in the past, and worse -- Stalin and Mao were most definitely militant -- but that's not the point here. Seriously. Richard Dawkins? He's an Oxford professor, not a junta leader! Maybe he hurts people's feelings a bit, but "miltant"?
Militant can mean aggressive in fighting for a cause. It doesn't necessarily mean causing physical harm.