One of the funniest things I have read was from an American trying to claim that the evolution of a mathematical time series was in some way related to Darwin's theory of evolution.
The word `evolution' confused him, I think. It didn't help that the model was describing a chemical process (if I remember correctly). Without putting any thought into it, he simply assumed evolution in the Darwinian sense.
It was brilliant. Doubly so as he believes he knows something about science.
Of course, I am ignoring the wacky papers that would turn up in the Physics tea room for our amusement - from so-called `spiritual gurus' - solving everything from quark confinement to renormalisable field theories. All you have to do is believe. Who needs math when you have faith?
Most of these authors seemed to have asian names, so perhaps that bit isn't on topic.
You never know, xenu. The Asian-sounding names could have been taken to give the writers more appeal to those who would be interested in that New Age sorta thing. A lot of the New Age movement is a rejection of core precepts of Western Civilization, and as such usually an adoption of a more Eastern point of view.
It's settled if you talk to the only people who can tell you conclusively whether or not being gay is a choice: gay people. We know that being gay isn't a choice, because we know we didn't choose it. Period. End of story.
Kirkland I have no problem with your views. I am only trying to help you to understand that your tact or lack of it is not helping your cause.
What If I said:
" It's settled if you talk to the only people who can tell you conclusively whether or not God exists or not: Christian people. We know that god existing or not isn't a question.
It's settled."
You see that is not a viable method to go about explaining your view on a matter.
Do you not see that? I am not against your views I am pointing out your weak way of going about supporting your views.
But they are not universally applicable. Bigots who talk about "the gay lifestyle" lump all gays into one group and presume that we all dress, think and act alike, that we all have the same tastes, that we're a monochromatic group with know hues or tints.
Brace yourself Kirkland... What you say above is where we are 100% agreement. I made myself very clear on this with the Howard Dean remarks about "southerners"
When people lump people into groups as to "put them in a place" and as a political figure assume that they can be "had" as supporters it is more than an insult. I agree with you 100%
The irony is, all of my replies to you in this thread have been in response to you doing what it is you complain of above which you notice (correctly) that others do to gay people.
You put Southern Baptists in a "place" as if they are all one thing.
You put Texas in a "place"
You put Dallas in a "place"
I never put you in a place.
That is what I am saying Kirkland. I would be happy to have a few drinks with you sometime.
Ok, I've been checking back on this thread only to see if Kirkland was polite enough to apologize for calling me religious, but it seems clear that's not going to happen.
So as a final note, let me suggest that you start a new thread relevant to the topic which has hijacked the thread.
Getting back on topic, responding to Xenu...
Quote:
One of the funniest things I have read was from an American trying to claim that the evolution of a mathematical time series was in some way related to Darwin's theory of evolution.
I think I read once that of technically minded people, mathematicians and computer scientists are the most skeptical of evolutionary theory. In my own discussions I have found this to result from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, biased by their professions. Computer guys have this impression that anything that does anything has to be precisely designed and perfectly codified (e.g. computer code). Math guys have the same type of thinking as they are accustom to rigid algorithms and the form of most proofs.
I think the rise of cellular automota and genetic algorithms are starting to cultivate a better basic understanding in these fields, but it will take a while. Also, strictly speaking most computer science is more engineering than science.
Ok, I've been checking back on this thread only to see if Kirkland was polite enough to apologize for calling me religious, but it seems clear that's not going to happen.
I thought I had. That must've been the post that was eaten when one of those stupid VISE installers decided to quit all running applications for me.
I was confused by your wording, and didn't mean to ascribe to you beliefs to which you do not ascribe. Sorry.
I'll gladly read any studies you care to post. The last one I read that was pro on the issue was a twin study and had less than 40% of the identical twins also living as homosexuals. This despite the sample being recruited through a magazine catering to homosexuals.
The issue you bring up is much broader than the politically correct context in which you seek to frame it. It is genetic determinism vs. free will, and I assure you it is no where near settled.
Conscious choice vs. genetic determinism is a false dichotomy. Or maybe it's the fallacy of the excluded middle, or some such thing. It's possible that environmental factors play a deterministic role. For example, many diseases are not genetic, but rather are transmitted through viruses or other environmental means. It wasn't your choice to get the disease, but it wasn't genetic either.
However, Kirkland says that gays report it as not being a choice. That's mostly true, but I believe a significant proportion of lesbians report having made a conscious choice, and a non-zero number of gay men say it was a choice.
Conscious choice vs. genetic determinism is a false dichotomy. Or maybe it's the fallacy of the excluded middle, or some such thing. It's possible that environmental factors play a deterministic role. For example, many diseases are not genetic, but rather are transmitted through viruses or other environmental means. It wasn't your choice to get the disease, but it wasn't genetic either.
However, Kirkland says that gays report it as not being a choice. That's mostly true, but I believe a significant proportion of lesbians report having made a conscious choice, and a non-zero number of gay men say it was a choice.
I would be please if we come back on the topic. Thanks in advance.
You never know, xenu. The Asian-sounding names could have been taken to give the writers more appeal to those who would be interested in that New Age sorta thing. A lot of the New Age movement is a rejection of core precepts of Western Civilization, and as such usually an adoption of a more Eastern point of view.
More than likely, although any author pictures tended to have Indian looking gurus with legs crossed over, and long flowing beards.
I think I read once that of technically minded people, mathematicians and computer scientists are the most skeptical of evolutionary theory. In my own discussions I have found this to result from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, biased by their professions. Computer guys have this impression that anything that does anything has to be precisely designed and perfectly codified (e.g. computer code). Math guys have the same type of thinking as they are accustom to rigid algorithms and the form of most proofs.
I think the rise of cellular automota and genetic algorithms are starting to cultivate a better basic understanding in these fields, but it will take a while. Also, strictly speaking most computer science is more engineering than science. [/B]
The person I quoted wasn't a mathematician. That was his problem.
He also had a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.
Put the two together, and you have a very funny claim.
The Capital of Minnesota is St. Paul. The sad thing is that I know people who live in Minnesota (which is where I live) who still think it's Minneapolis (the big city across the river.)
I agree: Americans are dumb. In my astronomy class (college, not high school) one of our test questions was: What is the geocentric theory? Someone actually wrote that it was the theory explaining how life got on Mars. And numerous people missed the question: Who are the galilean moons named after?
The Capital of Minnesota is St. Paul. The sad thing is that I know people who live in Minnesota (which is where I live) who still think it's Minneapolis (the big city across the river.)
I agree: Americans are dumb. In my astronomy class (college, not high school) one of our test questions was: What is the geocentric theory? Someone actually wrote that it was the theory explaining how life got on Mars. And numerous people missed the question: Who are the galilean moons named after?
All teachers of all continents have a collection of funny answers. It only prove that people need to get more attention in school, or should stay there until the age of 40 in order to learn the minimal knowledge (and i am not even sure of this one).
It remember a real story, a MD student ask to parents why they called their son Clintis ( a weird name isn't it). They answered because of the famous actor Clintis wood (Clint Eastwood)
It's settled if you talk to the only people who can tell you conclusively whether or not being gay is a choice: gay people. We know that being gay isn't a choice, because we know we didn't choose it. Period. End of story.
Yes and if I speak to smokers, they are sure their nicotine addiction is purely genetic. If I speak to alcoholics (of which there are several in my family, their problem is purely genetic. There are studies of course that suggest an increase in suceptibility, but we've not moved beyond that.
You are not suggesting that genetics controls appearance which is the issue with all other civil rights groups. Rather you are saying that genetics controls behavior. This again, is very much up for debate.
Likewise the logical claim that someone wouldn't choose something that could (depending upon who you are discussing this with) a) harm them b) go outside the norm c)put them at odds with society. People make those choices everyday. Smoking, drug use, religion, wealth accumulation, career and educational choices all could have the same traits depending
upon who you ask.
Quote:
But they are not universally applicable. Bigots who talk about "the gay lifestyle" lump all gays into one group and presume that we all dress, think and act alike, that we all have the same tastes, that we're a monochromatic group with know hues or tints. It's bullshit. I hate dancing, my pseudo-boyfriend actually likes sports. It's a diverse and multifaceted group. Since gays are found literally everywhere in every walk of life, the only point to lumping us all into one with terms like "lifestyle" is to make us easier to persecute, hunt down and destroy. Which is, in the end, the ultimate goal of the anti-gay movement.
Look as I stated this comes from both sides. There are homosexuals who are very settled and suburban. They advocate things like homosexual marriage. However there are also homosexuals who find the concept of marriage and monogamy insulting. They think that trying to act "hetero" is as insulting as those who suggest that blacks act white or women acting like men.
The most ironic part of all this is you assuring me that I would get the same answers from everyone who is homosexual while asking me to appreciate the diversity of thought within that group. I know better because I've experienced better myself.
Let apologize for my off-topic post here. I started it at lunch and finished it afterschool. In the middle three hours or so, there were about a dozen posts in between including those of Powerdoc imploring all of us to get back on topic. I didn't see those until after I hit submit reply.
I think someone hit the nail on the head earlier on: Europeans and central Asians tend to travel to other countries more often than do Americans (and for longer periods), so perhaps their knowledge (in so far as politics, economics, world culture and geography at least) can be said to stem from the fact that they have an interest in these places. It could also be said that being neighbors they take a more humble attitude to foreign lands, and therefore are a bit more openminded about learning "new ways of doing things".
The US, being as isolated as it is geographically and culturally, is clearly at a disadvantage in this regard. So maybe we would argue that if there were no Atlantic Ocean separating us, Americans wouldn't be so retarded generally speaking. OTOH, this country was built upon the backs of people from all those other countries... therefore I say if our parents were on the average smarter about these things than we are, it's because at some point they took an interest and we didn't.
There's no getting around it: Americans are mentally lazy. Maybe it's television, maybe it's our isolation, but whatever it is, our environment produces mentally lazy people in much larger proportion than it does mentally "hungry" people. And in larger proportion than do other western countries.
Powerdoc: I understand also what you were saying earlier (not to be cruel / arrogant just because we put our synapses to use when those around us don't). Still... there are some who deserve all the verbal abuse we can dish out, because it's not their circumstance but their own laziness that creates the condition. Damnit I need an excuse to bash these people!
BTW, BR was right: anyone who doesn't like horses is not only gay, but probably a "daym comminist" too!
It remember a real story, a MD student ask to parents why they called their son Clintis ( a weird name isn't it). They answered because of the famous actor Clintis wood (Clint Eastwood)
A woman at the apartment complex we lived at in Dallas named her girl "Female". She thought that in America the names were handed out at the hospital so she just went with what was listed on her baby's little card. She pronounced it Phe-Mal, which is actually kind of pretty sounding.
Comments
One of the funniest things I have read was from an American trying to claim that the evolution of a mathematical time series was in some way related to Darwin's theory of evolution.
The word `evolution' confused him, I think. It didn't help that the model was describing a chemical process (if I remember correctly). Without putting any thought into it, he simply assumed evolution in the Darwinian sense.
It was brilliant. Doubly so as he believes he knows something about science.
Of course, I am ignoring the wacky papers that would turn up in the Physics tea room for our amusement - from so-called `spiritual gurus' - solving everything from quark confinement to renormalisable field theories. All you have to do is believe. Who needs math when you have faith?
Most of these authors seemed to have asian names, so perhaps that bit isn't on topic.
Originally posted by Kirkland
It's settled if you talk to the only people who can tell you conclusively whether or not being gay is a choice: gay people. We know that being gay isn't a choice, because we know we didn't choose it. Period. End of story.
Kirkland I have no problem with your views. I am only trying to help you to understand that your tact or lack of it is not helping your cause.
What If I said:
" It's settled if you talk to the only people who can tell you conclusively whether or not God exists or not: Christian people. We know that god existing or not isn't a question.
It's settled."
You see that is not a viable method to go about explaining your view on a matter.
Do you not see that? I am not against your views I am pointing out your weak way of going about supporting your views.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Kirkland
But they are not universally applicable. Bigots who talk about "the gay lifestyle" lump all gays into one group and presume that we all dress, think and act alike, that we all have the same tastes, that we're a monochromatic group with know hues or tints.
Brace yourself Kirkland... What you say above is where we are 100% agreement. I made myself very clear on this with the Howard Dean remarks about "southerners"
When people lump people into groups as to "put them in a place" and as a political figure assume that they can be "had" as supporters it is more than an insult. I agree with you 100%
The irony is, all of my replies to you in this thread have been in response to you doing what it is you complain of above which you notice (correctly) that others do to gay people.
You put Southern Baptists in a "place" as if they are all one thing.
You put Texas in a "place"
You put Dallas in a "place"
I never put you in a place.
That is what I am saying Kirkland. I would be happy to have a few drinks with you sometime.
Fellowship
So as a final note, let me suggest that you start a new thread relevant to the topic which has hijacked the thread.
Getting back on topic, responding to Xenu...
One of the funniest things I have read was from an American trying to claim that the evolution of a mathematical time series was in some way related to Darwin's theory of evolution.
I think I read once that of technically minded people, mathematicians and computer scientists are the most skeptical of evolutionary theory. In my own discussions I have found this to result from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, biased by their professions. Computer guys have this impression that anything that does anything has to be precisely designed and perfectly codified (e.g. computer code). Math guys have the same type of thinking as they are accustom to rigid algorithms and the form of most proofs.
I think the rise of cellular automota and genetic algorithms are starting to cultivate a better basic understanding in these fields, but it will take a while. Also, strictly speaking most computer science is more engineering than science.
You do not have any knowledge, or even evidence, to indicate that your magical little imaginary friend really lives up in the sky.
The two are not comparable.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Except that I know conclusively, 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt that I never chose to be gay.
You do not have any knowledge, or even evidence, to indicate that your magical little imaginary friend really lives up in the sky.
The two are not comparable.
If you want to discuss this issue, feel free to open an other thread. This thread has derailed too much.
Thanks in advance.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Ok, I've been checking back on this thread only to see if Kirkland was polite enough to apologize for calling me religious, but it seems clear that's not going to happen.
I thought I had. That must've been the post that was eaten when one of those stupid VISE installers decided to quit all running applications for me.
I was confused by your wording, and didn't mean to ascribe to you beliefs to which you do not ascribe. Sorry.
Kirk
Originally posted by trumptman
I'll gladly read any studies you care to post. The last one I read that was pro on the issue was a twin study and had less than 40% of the identical twins also living as homosexuals. This despite the sample being recruited through a magazine catering to homosexuals.
The issue you bring up is much broader than the politically correct context in which you seek to frame it. It is genetic determinism vs. free will, and I assure you it is no where near settled.
Conscious choice vs. genetic determinism is a false dichotomy. Or maybe it's the fallacy of the excluded middle, or some such thing. It's possible that environmental factors play a deterministic role. For example, many diseases are not genetic, but rather are transmitted through viruses or other environmental means. It wasn't your choice to get the disease, but it wasn't genetic either.
However, Kirkland says that gays report it as not being a choice. That's mostly true, but I believe a significant proportion of lesbians report having made a conscious choice, and a non-zero number of gay men say it was a choice.
Originally posted by BRussell
Conscious choice vs. genetic determinism is a false dichotomy. Or maybe it's the fallacy of the excluded middle, or some such thing. It's possible that environmental factors play a deterministic role. For example, many diseases are not genetic, but rather are transmitted through viruses or other environmental means. It wasn't your choice to get the disease, but it wasn't genetic either.
However, Kirkland says that gays report it as not being a choice. That's mostly true, but I believe a significant proportion of lesbians report having made a conscious choice, and a non-zero number of gay men say it was a choice.
I would be please if we come back on the topic. Thanks in advance.
Originally posted by Kirkland
You never know, xenu. The Asian-sounding names could have been taken to give the writers more appeal to those who would be interested in that New Age sorta thing. A lot of the New Age movement is a rejection of core precepts of Western Civilization, and as such usually an adoption of a more Eastern point of view.
More than likely, although any author pictures tended to have Indian looking gurus with legs crossed over, and long flowing beards.
Probably a stock photo.
Getting back on topic, responding to Xenu...
I think I read once that of technically minded people, mathematicians and computer scientists are the most skeptical of evolutionary theory. In my own discussions I have found this to result from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, biased by their professions. Computer guys have this impression that anything that does anything has to be precisely designed and perfectly codified (e.g. computer code). Math guys have the same type of thinking as they are accustom to rigid algorithms and the form of most proofs.
I think the rise of cellular automota and genetic algorithms are starting to cultivate a better basic understanding in these fields, but it will take a while. Also, strictly speaking most computer science is more engineering than science. [/B]
The person I quoted wasn't a mathematician. That was his problem.
He also had a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.
Put the two together, and you have a very funny claim.
The Capital of Minnesota is St. Paul. The sad thing is that I know people who live in Minnesota (which is where I live) who still think it's Minneapolis (the big city across the river.)
I agree: Americans are dumb. In my astronomy class (college, not high school) one of our test questions was: What is the geocentric theory? Someone actually wrote that it was the theory explaining how life got on Mars.
Originally posted by Naderfan
Going way back to an earlier comment:
The Capital of Minnesota is St. Paul. The sad thing is that I know people who live in Minnesota (which is where I live) who still think it's Minneapolis (the big city across the river.)
I agree: Americans are dumb. In my astronomy class (college, not high school) one of our test questions was: What is the geocentric theory? Someone actually wrote that it was the theory explaining how life got on Mars.
All teachers of all continents have a collection of funny answers. It only prove that people need to get more attention in school, or should stay there until the age of 40 in order to learn the minimal knowledge (and i am not even sure of this one).
It remember a real story, a MD student ask to parents why they called their son Clintis ( a weird name isn't it). They answered because of the famous actor Clintis wood (Clint Eastwood)
It's just a bit of malapropism, but still, kinda funny, in an ignorant sorta way.
Originally posted by Kirkland
It's settled if you talk to the only people who can tell you conclusively whether or not being gay is a choice: gay people. We know that being gay isn't a choice, because we know we didn't choose it. Period. End of story.
Yes and if I speak to smokers, they are sure their nicotine addiction is purely genetic. If I speak to alcoholics (of which there are several in my family, their problem is purely genetic. There are studies of course that suggest an increase in suceptibility, but we've not moved beyond that.
You are not suggesting that genetics controls appearance which is the issue with all other civil rights groups. Rather you are saying that genetics controls behavior. This again, is very much up for debate.
Likewise the logical claim that someone wouldn't choose something that could (depending upon who you are discussing this with) a) harm them b) go outside the norm c)put them at odds with society. People make those choices everyday. Smoking, drug use, religion, wealth accumulation, career and educational choices all could have the same traits depending
upon who you ask.
But they are not universally applicable. Bigots who talk about "the gay lifestyle" lump all gays into one group and presume that we all dress, think and act alike, that we all have the same tastes, that we're a monochromatic group with know hues or tints. It's bullshit. I hate dancing, my pseudo-boyfriend actually likes sports. It's a diverse and multifaceted group. Since gays are found literally everywhere in every walk of life, the only point to lumping us all into one with terms like "lifestyle" is to make us easier to persecute, hunt down and destroy. Which is, in the end, the ultimate goal of the anti-gay movement.
Look as I stated this comes from both sides. There are homosexuals who are very settled and suburban. They advocate things like homosexual marriage. However there are also homosexuals who find the concept of marriage and monogamy insulting. They think that trying to act "hetero" is as insulting as those who suggest that blacks act white or women acting like men.
The most ironic part of all this is you assuring me that I would get the same answers from everyone who is homosexual while asking me to appreciate the diversity of thought within that group. I know better because I've experienced better myself.
Nick
Sorry...
Nick
The US, being as isolated as it is geographically and culturally, is clearly at a disadvantage in this regard. So maybe we would argue that if there were no Atlantic Ocean separating us, Americans wouldn't be so retarded generally speaking. OTOH, this country was built upon the backs of people from all those other countries... therefore I say if our parents were on the average smarter about these things than we are, it's because at some point they took an interest and we didn't.
There's no getting around it: Americans are mentally lazy. Maybe it's television, maybe it's our isolation, but whatever it is, our environment produces mentally lazy people in much larger proportion than it does mentally "hungry" people. And in larger proportion than do other western countries.
Powerdoc: I understand also what you were saying earlier (not to be cruel / arrogant just because we put our synapses to use when those around us don't). Still... there are some who deserve all the verbal abuse we can dish out, because it's not their circumstance but their own laziness that creates the condition. Damnit I need an excuse to bash these people!
BTW, BR was right: anyone who doesn't like horses is not only gay, but probably a "daym comminist" too!
Originally posted by Powerdoc
It remember a real story, a MD student ask to parents why they called their son Clintis ( a weird name isn't it). They answered because of the famous actor Clintis wood (Clint Eastwood)
A woman at the apartment complex we lived at in Dallas named her girl "Female". She thought that in America the names were handed out at the hospital so she just went with what was listed on her baby's little card. She pronounced it Phe-Mal, which is actually kind of pretty sounding.