flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Briton is world's first officially genderless person

Goto page Previous  1, 2
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
kohlrak wrote:
I'm all ears on this one. Please, elaborate.

I will just write some facts off memory, I don't have time for "well-researched" reply right now.

I was not talking about circumcision. I meant literal self-castration. As in Jesus saying (in Bible) "if your hands sins, cut it off, if your eye sins, rip it off" or "there are some who made themselves eunuch for glory of God" (exact quotes are probably somewhat different, but the meaning is same).

It makes sense, given that Jesus says apocalypse will come in few decades after his life, and only those who are completely devoted to christian cause will "inherit eternal life" and not be thrown into Gehenna. Under such circumstances, you really should forget about "earthly stuff", and not let sexuality distract yourself from more important eternal things. There was a lot of discussion in early christianity about how to resist sexual "temptation". And some people (quite a lot according to attention this problem has been given) found solution in literal intepretation of Bible, and castrated themselves. Origen, who was the most important christian of 3rd century is reported to have castrated himself. Based on volume of his writing, I'd believe it Smile. Even in 4th century this apparently was still such an important matter, than the very first decree of famous Nicaean council was ban on self-castration. Other church matters only came afterwards.

This is one of things they won't tell you in sunday preaching Smile
Post 18 Mar 2010, 11:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
ass0



Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 521
Location: ( . Y . )
ass0
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/norries-ungendered-status-withdrawn-by-attorney-general/story-e6frfku0-1225842477826 wrote:
..."They all said they didn't know how to put it (gender unspecified) into their computers, but they all agreed to do it and to have a word to their computer programmers," Norrie said.

"It is the job of the system to fit the people it serves, not the job of the people to fit the system...


I think i've seen that kind of philosophy right here in this very board...Image

_________________
Image
Nombre: Aquiles Castro.
Location2: about:robots
Post 18 Mar 2010, 12:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
vid wrote:
kohlrak wrote:
I'm all ears on this one. Please, elaborate.

I will just write some facts off memory, I don't have time for "well-researched" reply right now.

I was not talking about circumcision. I meant literal self-castration. As in Jesus saying (in Bible) "if your hands sins, cut it off, if your eye sins, rip it off" or "there are some who made themselves eunuch for glory of God" (exact quotes are probably somewhat different, but the meaning is same).

It makes sense, given that Jesus says apocalypse will come in few decades after his life, and only those who are completely devoted to christian cause will "inherit eternal life" and not be thrown into Gehenna. Under such circumstances, you really should forget about "earthly stuff", and not let sexuality distract yourself from more important eternal things. There was a lot of discussion in early christianity about how to resist sexual "temptation". And some people (quite a lot according to attention this problem has been given) found solution in literal intepretation of Bible, and castrated themselves. Origen, who was the most important christian of 3rd century is reported to have castrated himself. Based on volume of his writing, I'd believe it Smile. Even in 4th century this apparently was still such an important matter, than the very first decree of famous Nicaean council was ban on self-castration. Other church matters only came afterwards.


Didn't it ever cross their mind that if God didn't want us to have body parts that he wouldn't give them to us? I wonder how many of them tried to fit a camel through the head of a needle. Or kissed someone who was trying to kill them.

Quote:
This is one of things they won't tell you in sunday preaching Smile


Oh believe me, i have my own criticisms of what they don't preach about... I find that it's usually similar sermons to the sermons of last year. I think you could go to a church for 2 or 3 years and get out of it everything it has to offer...
Post 18 Mar 2010, 19:16
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
kohlrak wrote:
Didn't it ever cross their mind that if God didn't want us to have body parts that he wouldn't give them to us?
Where the hell did you get this idea from?

At best God doesn't want us to act in a certain way, free will y'know. In fact, by your logic, he should have made us all slaves, without giving us freedom to choose something he doesn't like.

Really loving God must that be, slavery and all. Your logic is absurd. Razz

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 19 Mar 2010, 16:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Borsuc wrote:
kohlrak wrote:
Didn't it ever cross their mind that if God didn't want us to have body parts that he wouldn't give them to us?
Where the hell did you get this idea from?

At best God doesn't want us to act in a certain way, free will y'know. In fact, by your logic, he should have made us all slaves, without giving us freedom to choose something he doesn't like.

Really loving God must that be, slavery and all. Your logic is absurd. Razz


Your logic is absurd. You assume that a God, more complicated than us, would desire only that we follow his will. Gee, you're right, he could very easily made us slaves. Perhaps his idea is that we would willingly and freely choose him over ourselves. Ah, just like in human relationships, the end goal is to not care about yourself, but someone else. Does this seem illogical to you?
Post 19 Mar 2010, 18:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
kohlrak wrote:
You assume that a God, more complicated than us, would desire only that we follow his will.
The only absurdity here is you not getting what I meant.

Of course he would prefer that we follow his will, but he is not a tyrant to take freedom away from us. However, if people reject him and his principles, then he grants their wishes: an eternity without him.

I mean, if someone says "fuck God and his stupid principles" and goes his own way, surely he does not want to step foot into God's house FULL of those principles... PLUS he gets his wish, away from God's principles...

Hell can be seen as accomplishing those people's wishes, indirectly, by having them spend their eternity without God and his help, since they hate him (or his views) so much. I'm talking mostly about those that hate God's will -- for example, disbelieving in God while still not hating his principles is much different, it's not a question of belief or disbelief. It's a question of principles.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 20 Mar 2010, 15:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Borsuc wrote:
kohlrak wrote:
You assume that a God, more complicated than us, would desire only that we follow his will.
The only absurdity here is you not getting what I meant.

Of course he would prefer that we follow his will, but he is not a tyrant to take freedom away from us. However, if people reject him and his principles, then he grants their wishes: an eternity without him.

I mean, if someone says "fuck God and his stupid principles" and goes his own way, surely he does not want to step foot into God's house FULL of those principles... PLUS he gets his wish, away from God's principles...

Hell can be seen as accomplishing those people's wishes, indirectly, by having them spend their eternity without God and his help, since they hate him (or his views) so much. I'm talking mostly about those that hate God's will -- for example, disbelieving in God while still not hating his principles is much different, it's not a question of belief or disbelief. It's a question of principles.


I don't see the problem. If someone wants to be away from God, he or she can be, in Hell. He wants our willing following, and if we don't give it, we get what we want, not to follow him. He's pleased by our choice to follow him, but he certainly will let us destroy ourselves. I fail to see the problem.
Post 20 Mar 2010, 17:43
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
That's what I said. I never said there's a problem. I said, if someone doesn't like God's principles, he'll be away from him no problem. I think we got confused somewhere along the way, making absurd statements lol (logic-wise ofc) Wink
Post 21 Mar 2010, 14:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17255
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Haha, arguing over something you all have no idea about whether it is true or not.

Firstly you have to prove god exists before you can even think about discussing what god wants or does or whatever. Prove that we still have an active conciousness after death before you start discussing about where it goes or what it does or whatever.

How many faeries can dance on the head of a pin?
How many goblins does it take to subdue a dragon?
Post 21 Mar 2010, 14:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
revolution wrote:
Haha, arguing over something you all have no idea about whether it is true or not.

Firstly you have to prove god exists before you can even think about discussing what god wants or does or whatever. Prove that we still have an active conciousness after death before you start discussing about where it goes or what it does or whatever.

How many faeries can dance on the head of a pin?
How many goblins does it take to subdue a dragon?


Ah, ah. Arguing about things based on other things which also isn't proven is bad? I'm still not convinced on big bang, yet evolution (as an origin of life) needs something other than a god for an origin. How 'bout we drop that theory until we have a beginning? There are other examples as well: surprising examples. Rolling Eyes
Post 21 Mar 2010, 23:06
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Back to original topic, I still haven't heard Roman Catholic Church's stance on hermaphrodites... Which set of rules apply, male or female? Smile
Post 22 Mar 2010, 09:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17255
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Back off topic ... Razz
kohlrak wrote:
Ah, ah. Arguing about things based on other things which also isn't proven is bad?
Not bad, just pointless.
kohlrak wrote:
I'm still not convinced on big bang,
That is fine. But don't confuse that with god or evolution. Both of those things are entirely different matters. All can exist together, or separately, or not at all. It just depends upon what the speaker wishes to believe. None of it it proved so currently we are all free to believe in any or all or none. They are not in any way mutually exclusive at the fundamental level. It is only various teachings that one might choose to believe that will tell us that one or other is, or is not, true.
kohlrak wrote:
... yet evolution (as an origin of life) needs something other than a god for an origin.
No it doesn't. Both god and evolution can exist as beliefs together. One could, if one wanted, say that god created the universe (perhaps by initiating a big bang, perhaps by another method) and then set in motion evolution. There is no right or wrong here, just beliefs.
kohlrak wrote:
How 'bout we drop that theory until we have a beginning?
They are different theories that don't rely upon one another to exist. We can discuss (argue) each independantly of the other. It is only when one might try to say something like: "In 2000 generations humans will have four arms and two heads because evolution will force us to change to meet new demands". That type of statement is clearly erroneous until the premise of evolution is proved first. A similar statement with the same problem would be: "When we die our soul goes to heaven (or hell, or wherever)". This also suffers the problem of lack of proof for either a soul or heaven/hell. We would have to prove those things exist first before deciding upon where they might go.
kohlrak wrote:
There are other examples as well: surprising examples.
Please elaborate.
Post 22 Mar 2010, 13:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
kohlrak wrote:
I'm still not convinced on big bang

I'm inflating a balloon. It was very small and empty seconds ago and now, it's filled with air, it's big and getting bigger. You are like the guy who enters the room now and says: "this balloon has always been that size."
It's not a perfect analogy since air is coming from the outside (my lungs), but you can still get the idea.

Our Universe is expanding. This can be seen quite easily by observing effects such as the cosmological redshift. Logically, the Universe must have been much smaller at one time, an infinitely small and dense point, a primordial singularity. And it has be expanding since an event dubbed by scientists as... the big bang. You can call it what you want, but this event did happen, whether you like/want it or not.
Post 22 Mar 2010, 16:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
The balloon analogy is for the expansion of space, not for the "Universe getting bigger" (surface of balloon being an analogous 2D world, of course the big bang works in 3D world, so it's a "4D balloon" in space).

In a normal air-pumped balloon, you put matter into it (air). In this one, space itself expands, not matter is being pushed.

oh and btw the balloon is expanding at an accelerating rate despite even the Universe's gravity -- the big bang didn't "just happen before", something is actually happening right now.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 22 Mar 2010, 18:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
Borsuc wrote:
In a normal air-pumped balloon, you put matter into it (air). In this one, space itself expands, not matter is being pushed.
You can make a simple simulation of the automatically and constantly expanding Universe without constant pumping of air into the balloon.
  1. Put some air into the balloon and tie its exit (initial state).
  2. Place the balloon in the vacuum container - balloon will start to expand. This expansion will be accelerated due to the material features (you may easily check it Wink - thinner balloon's surface causes quicker expansion) and most probably finally balloon will explode.
Razz
Post 22 Mar 2010, 18:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
That is fine. But don't confuse that with god or evolution. Both of those things are entirely different matters. All can exist together, or separately, or not at all. It just depends upon what the speaker wishes to believe. None of it it proved so currently we are all free to believe in any or all or none. They are not in any way mutually exclusive at the fundamental level. It is only various teachings that one might choose to believe that will tell us that one or other is, or is not, true.


The problem is, Evolution as propogated (that is, not by deffinition) conflicts with established religions. If it didn't do that, i wouldn't care what people said about it, to be honest, since there's alots of "scientific" (yes, once again, by "scientific" i'm announcing that there is lots of pseudo-science out there) BS going around anyway that doesn't have as much of an effect. Heck, i honestly think evolution to some degree could explain how so many different species of animals could come from such a small boat (Noah's Ark [or an equivalent from other religions] anyone?). However, as sold, i'm not buying it. Before we package man comming from monkeys (i know, not everything that looks like a man and isn't is considered a monkey, but that's what we native english speakers call monkeys), we should go ahead and establish that species drift. However, due to the ramifications of accepting the name, you might want to consider giving it a new name, so you have much less opposition.

Quote:
No it doesn't. Both god and evolution can exist as beliefs together. One could, if one wanted, say that god created the universe (perhaps by initiating a big bang, perhaps by another method) and then set in motion evolution. There is no right or wrong here, just beliefs.


See above.

Quote:
They are different theories that don't rely upon one another to exist. We can discuss (argue) each independantly of the other. It is only when one might try to say something like: "In 2000 generations humans will have four arms and two heads because evolution will force us to change to meet new demands". That type of statement is clearly erroneous until the premise of evolution is proved first. A similar statement with the same problem would be: "When we die our soul goes to heaven (or hell, or wherever)". This also suffers the problem of lack of proof for either a soul or heaven/hell. We would have to prove those things exist first before deciding upon where they might go.


Reminds me alot of global warming. And the argument i will provide here is pretty much the same one i hear for global warming: Wouldn't it be better to prepare for catastrophy incase it happens than wait around unprepared when it happens. Truth is, though, this has no purpose in scientific argument. In the case of global warming i've suggested building boats instead of killing jobs, but for some unknown reason they don't like that idea. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
Please elaborate.


Global warming: We must first prove the earth is warming (we did, eventually, but not before end-of-the-world theories started), then we must find out what the effects are (some of all those computer models make great for movies, but they are not science), then we must prove who's fault it is (not established, since, as of right now, it's back and forth battles over mere evidence), then we must find out what can be done to fix the problem (right now, i continually only hear rediculous solutions from the "man-made" side, and nothing from the "it's a cycle" side), then we must find out which problem creates the least problems (side effects) in the process (the current solutions are irresponsibly harmful to various economies [and other things per solution] around the world). Then, and only then, should we legislate the answers to the problem. However, all the political muk is getting in the way of any real solutions.

There was another example i once heard, and i wish i could remember the name of the thing. This guy came up with one theory based on statistics or something, which i'm not even sure were right to begin with. Then he went on and on making more theories off of his previous ones. To be honest, i really don't know what he was trying to say... In the end, all he was doing was making a really radical claim for the field of Austraunomy that gamma rays come from some weird phonomena that no one has ever considered before (probably because it simply didn't exist Laughing). The sad thing was, his whole claim was supported only by mathematical equiations, guesses, and random statistics which i have no idea where he got them from. It's this kind of crap that drags the name of science through the muk.

I hope i don't have to explain what i mean when i simply say, "dinosaurs" here (yes, even in the bible there's room to support the idea of dinosaurs, i'm merely mention the rediculous arguments about the T-Rex being either a scavenger or a hunter, and other pointless arguments like that).

Quote:
I'm inflating a balloon. It was very small and empty seconds ago and now, it's filled with air, it's big and getting bigger. You are like the guy who enters the room now and says: "this balloon has always been that size."
It's not a perfect analogy since air is coming from the outside (my lungs), but you can still get the idea.

Our Universe is expanding. This can be seen quite easily by observing effects such as the cosmological redshift. Logically, the Universe must have been much smaller at one time, an infinitely small and dense point, a primordial singularity. And it has be expanding since an event dubbed by scientists as... the big bang. You can call it what you want, but this event did happen, whether you like/want it or not.


I'm not convinced it's getting bigger. Simply put, there's no way that if the universe is so large that humans would've been around long enough to see things getting further away. Even then, our methods are not subjective to interference.

Quote:
oh and btw the balloon is expanding at an accelerating rate despite even the Universe's gravity -- the big bang didn't "just happen before", something is actually happening right now.


I love this explanation, too, in the case that i am somehow wrong about the expansion.

Quote:
You can make a simple simulation of the automatically and constantly expanding Universe without constant pumping of air into the balloon.

1. Put some air into the balloon and tie its exit (initial state).
2. Place the balloon in the vacuum container - balloon will start to expand. This expansion will be accelerated due to the material features (you may easily check it Wink - thinner balloon's surface causes quicker expansion) and most probably finally balloon will explode.


And i love this explanation even more, since this implies that everything had to be a single point in the universe that suddenly went boom for no apparent reason.
Post 22 Mar 2010, 20:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.