The thread is getting awfully repetitive. What do you think of the LGBT:Mormon compromise in Utah? Granted, no one there is 100% happy with it. But it does show compromise is possible. The main points are this:
1) Same sex marriage will be allowed in Utah.
2) Discrimination in housing or in the workplace on the basis of gender orientation or religious belief is specifically prohibited.
3) Churches will not be forced to perform same sex marriages if they do not want to.
The law does not address the issue of photographers or bakers who do not want to work at same sex wedding celebrations. My belief is that photographers, at least, are protected by First Amendment guarantees of freedom of expression.
How are they different? In fact, they are worse. Besides being terribly regressive, telling people that they cannot meet in their own building to worship unless they pay a tax is a gross violation of the establishment clause. Basically it is saying we only want rich churches around here. You po' people can go meet in another town.
Actually, property taxes aren't that regressive in the traditional sense, as they are based on the value of your property which, theoretically, you were not only able to purchase in the first place, but are able to continually maintain.
A great example of a regressive tax is something like the sales tax. If Taylor Swift and I both buy the same MacBook, we pay the same tax on it, even though she's worth something like $250,000,000 and I'm -- well -- not.
Almsot as bad? Almost?! Considering I used sarcasm and hyperbole make a joke I would assume, from your PoV, that it would be a lot worse.
So when one reveals an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of others that calls for their civil rights to be squashed I can't use the term bigot to describe them? That is the very definition of the term.
If you want to believe that homosexuality is a choice, and not a product of nature, that can be cured with counseling and religion, you have that write, and I support you in that right to be a homophobic bigot, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to call you out for what you are… as I have that right.
And? What is the most successful combination of diversity for Apple execs? Should Cook fire everyone so that the sex, genders and skin colours match up to some Cupertino, California, United States, North America, Western Hemisphere, or Earth average? How about instead of "putting lipstick on a pig" by covering up the fact that the various people are less likely to have their aptitude recognized for these positions with forced inclusions at the expense of the company, that Apple works from the bottom up to create change that allows everyone to be given a more even playing field… exactly like they are doing. But this isn't an overnight change and can't be done by Apple along. We, as a society, have to stop being homophobic, have to stop be misogynistic, have to stop thinking our religion and skin colour is the only that matters so we can get the hardest working people with the most aptitude to help push society forward.
@anantksundaram, his comment about Apple executives is another example. Does the fact there as 80% men on Apple's executive team mean that mean are inherently better that business? I don't think so, that are many other cultural reasons at play, and there is no evidence that suggests that women have inferior minds or less leadership potential.
I'm fairly certain I have never used the word bigot or racist online because it's nearly impossible for me to know the morals or ethics of a person based on a few posts. I could disagree with you 110% and would never use those words because those are really strong accusations without truly knowing someone.
I actually don't believe homosexuality is a choice I've been beaten up on this forum for saying I believe it's a product of nature. That makes members on this forum even more upset because then it can only be a defect in nature. Being gay can't be what nature intended because if that was the case procreation would be impossible without science and the species would become extinct. Someone not being able to help how they were born doesn't not mean it was intended by nature to be that way.
The number one instinct of any species is survival of that species. Being sexually attracted to the same gender goes against thats very primal instinct.
I was raised in NYC and I now live in Atlanta, working, interacting seeing gay people kissing is about as common for me as seeing the sky blue and the grass green. Someone can have an opinion or a belief that doesn't mean they are walking around throwing holy water on people calling them sinners.
As far as your diversity comments I was simply pointing out the difference in the two sites.
Apple pushes this diversity issue and it's nothing more then propaganda. For those that want to get all upset about the word propaganda
"information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."
When it comes down to it the real numbers shows their diversity numbers fall in line with other tech companies.
"Even though Apple is hiring more females for executive positions nowadays, the percentage of males in leadership roles is still 72%. As a result, Apple was criticized by shareholders Trillium Asset Management LLC and the Sustainability Group about its lack of diversity within the board of directors. When the complaint was filed in January, former Avon CEO Andrea Jung was Apple’s only female board member. After the shareholder complaint, Apple revised its corporate charter to say it would consider women and minorities as board candidates going forward."
Give me a break this we are so freaking diverse is nothing but bullshit.
"Most of the companies stonewalled us, but the data we were able to get showed what one might expect: Ethnic minorities and women are generally underrepresented, sometimes severely so -- particularly in management roles. White and Asian males often dominate their fields."
Damn does that look like any executive pages i've shown you recently?
The diversity at Apple falls in line with other silicon valley companies. There isn't anything special going on at Apple in terms of diversity. So their diversity page as you put it is nothing more then putting lipstick on a pig.
Apple pushes this diversity issue and it's nothing more then propaganda. For those that want to get all upset about the word propaganda
I'm fairly certain I have never used the word propaganda or publicity stunt online because it's nearly impossible for me to know the morals or ethics of the people behind the cause. I could disagree with you 110% and would never use those words because those are really strong accusations without truly knowing someone. . (See what I did there?)
The number one instinct of any species is survival of that species. Being sexually attracted to the same gender goes against thats very primal instinct.
Perhaps for insects and lower organisms but for humans, mating is not as high of a priority. One usually decides to become married and raise a family after they have secured a position within a community, completed education, become employed, have appropriate shelter and resources. They also choose a compatible mate from a psychological perspective not just anyone of the same species and opposite gender.
I'm fairly certain I have never used the word propaganda or publicity stunt online because it's nearly impossible for me to know the morals or ethics of the people behind the cause. I could disagree with you 110% and would never use those words because those are really strong accusations without truly knowing someone. . (See what I did there?)
I used the word propaganda because it's very clear when someone looks deeper into the diversity numbers. It's even more glaring when diversity started after Apple got called out for not having a diverse team of executives. Also last time I checked Apple is a company not a person.
Diversity always looks awesome at the bottom of the ladder and as you move up like the article says you see far more white and asian males. I know it's now hard for you to debate the numbers which is the reason by your posts is so short. That tends to happen a lot on this forum.
I've seen and lived these kinds of numbers since 1989 and they haven't changed since then. I remember my first management position when I was told about 3 mins into the job that my next two hires had to be black females because the department was made up mostly of white mails and white females. The more Tim Cook tweets about diversity and equal rights the more of a target he is going to put on Apple because they are never going to live up to the hype. You can't hire the best person and keep at certain percentage of diversity at the same time it's an impossible task the higher you get in a company, even more so in a tech company.
Diversity happens in one situation and one situation only, when you lower the standards. Anyone that believes differently is either really foolish or has never worked in management for a large technology company.
Perhaps for insects and lower organisms but for humans, mating is not as high of a priority. One usually decides to become married and raise a family after they have secured a position within a community, completed education, become employed, have appropriate shelter and resources. They also choose a compatible mate from a psychological perspective not just anyone of the same species and opposite gender.
There is so much wrong with that statement that I don't want to address him directly. Not that there isn't a general truth to it, but it's, at best, extremely myopic and juvenile. He doesn't address the largest picture of a :smokey: needing to survive as a grouping, as a whole of a species, or even as a complex ecosystem. If it was all about each member passing on their own genes there would be no queen ant or queen bee hierarchy. In fact, some female ants can reproduce through cloning or asexual parthenogenesis without ever needing a mate to produce offspring.
Furthermore, if it's just about producing offspring, then education is bad because this leads to fewer offspring among pair bonds. And if the homosexuality is bad because those pair bonds cannot produce offspring, does that mean we should make it illegal for those that would be unfit parents because of certain physical or mental issues, or those that can't have children? If a sterile couple can adopt, then why not a gay couple? Isn't a child brought up in a loving home better than a child brought up in a group home or an abusive home?
It ignores that homosexuality is natural. It's part of nature. We know that brain chemistry is not the same for all people, and we know that one can be born with male genitalia but have a natural attraction to men, or feel they are female, with and without a natural attraction to male. The same for females. We can deduce this because we know that intersex people exist in nature.
What gets me is this bigoted notion that because it's not the most common scenario it must be wrong, even though there are many other uncommon aspects to human physiology that we either ignore or even cherish.
Diversity happens in one situation and one situation only, when you lower the standards. Anyone that believes differently is either really foolish or has never worked in management for a large technology company.
That's your argument for everything, eh? Obama is half black…. America lowered their standards. Tim Cook is gay… Apple lowered their standards. Indra Nooyi is an Indian-baord woman… pepsi lowered their standards.
Or, a reasonable person would say that it raises the standard when you choose the best person from the largest group people.
PS: I'm guessing you're an American Caucasian male between 40 and 55yo, which is why you're showing your disdain for merit-based opportunities.
That's correct Foggy... Scientists once believed and preached the earth was flat, the earth revolved around the sun, that if you were sick then bloodletting would cure you, that processed foods were ok for human consumption, and as recently as the 1960s, Thalidomide was a real excellent cure for morning sickness in pregnant women. LOL.
And we all know what the Nazi German scientists believed about race.
Today we've got pseudo-scientists like Al Gore and David Suziki living in colossal mansions and flying on private jets to influence government policy, taxation and spending to the tune of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in order to "help save the planet", all the while with major stock holdings in companies that profit from "green energy" and you NEVER hear a left winger discussing their hypocrisy or blatant bias. We just have to assume it's all true because it's the politically correct thing to believe and because the propaganda states that anyone who loves freedom and less government must be a "psychopathic privleged white male homophobic global warming denier neo-republican tea bagger white heterosexual privileged nutbar"... All that love and tolerance, right?
Science has given a lot of great benefits to humanity but it's not infallible, it's still subject to crowd psychology and Social Mood just like any institution.
And Science has now been elevated to the status of RELIGION, in the sense that if you as a civilian won't toe the party line, you're deemed a heretic know-nothing, or worse, driven from political office or your job. High Priests in lab coats with clipboards holding special knowledge that must never be questioned because "after all, we have a CONSENSUS!".
I'm supposed to believe that I magically evolved from a soup of amoebas, today with color vision and the ability to argue with your liberal ass, and yet the amoeba are still there surviving just fine, and this magical event is without any intelligent cause, and no this is not a FAIRY TALE, this is PURE SCIENCE... and we are speculating about things that happened millions of years before humans were on the planet and so no one was there to record or test the theory... so much for the "scientific model" !
And if a governor signs a law that states you can't sue a baker for refusing to celebrate a homosexual marriage based on his religious beliefs, watch out! The economic and political fury from the militant left will rain down hellfire on anyone daring to question this militancy, under the Orwellian horseshit meme of "tolerance" and "respect". I don't think even Orwell could write such compelling dark satire as this.
I'm late to the party to point out that your post clearly indicates that you have little or no understanding of science. Firstly, there is no place for beliefs in science, since that would go entirely against the fundamental scientific principle (observe, hypothesize, test, refine).
Looking back and laughing at the flat earth model and bloodletting simply shows that you are unable to distinguish science from non-science. The flat earth concept did not arise from anything resembling science - it was an archaic, ignorant assumption. Pointing to more recent assertions, such as in regard to the safety of processed food or harmful drugs, simply conflates science with business self-interest. According to science you are not supposed to believe anything, whether it be the theory of evolution, AGW or the existence of God. The scientific method is to look at the evidence, develop the least complex hypotheses to explain the evidence, and try to break those hypotheses by testing. If you can't break them then eventually you elevate them to the status of working theory. If you start to become invested in a particular hypothesis then you are a poor scientist and, while those certainly exist, they do not represent science.
There is absolutely no comparison to the arbitrary and belief-based thinking that underpins all religion, which immediately fails every logical test that the scientific method imposes. The inability to understand that distinction itself underpins the widespread inability to understand science. Religious beliefs, while perhaps comforting, are entirely illogical for as many reasons as there are different religions, each of them the only real truth according to their proponents, and each of them completely devoid of any supporting evidence.
You were doing fine on socio-encomics. On this subject you are, unfortunately, clueless.
Perhaps for insects and lower organisms but for humans, mating is not as high of a priority. One usually decides to become married and raise a family after they have secured a position within a community, completed education, become employed, have appropriate shelter and resources. They also choose a compatible mate from a psychological perspective not just anyone of the same species and opposite gender.
I would certainly agree that it's not has high of a priority. However that could also be attributed to our population has grown because life expectancy has increased dramatically over the years because of science and medical advancements.
Based on some graphs around 1850 life expectancy was around 37. Insects and lower organisms have not have the advantage of medical advancements. Humans don't have to worry about being in the middle of a food chain being hunted and eaten by other animals. We have a great deal of advantages because or the technology we have created over time.
The reasons are innumerable. The pitfall I'm trying to avoid is a post hoc logical fallacy.
It's not a stretch to think that religion affects culture, literature, governance styles, laws, beliefs, values, and attitudes, all of which, in turn affect work ethic, work habits, impetus to get an education, openness to change, openness to science, tolerance etc. Again, as it has evolved through the years, not necessarily 500 or 700 years ago.
Apparently, there are some famous sociologists that have even studied stuff like this. But my knowledge -- and hence ability to make a case -- is admittedly limited. Perhaps yours is deeper.
That's correct Foggy... Scientists once believed and preached the earth was flat, the earth revolved around the sun, that if you were sick then bloodletting would cure you, that processed foods were ok for human consumption, and as recently as the 1960s, Thalidomide was a real excellent cure for morning sickness in pregnant women. LOL.
And we all know what the Nazi German scientists believed about race.
Today we've got pseudo-scientists like Al Gore and David Suziki living in colossal mansions and flying on private jets to influence government policy, taxation and spending to the tune of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in order to "help save the planet", all the while with major stock holdings in companies that profit from "green energy" and you NEVER hear a left winger discussing their hypocrisy or blatant bias. We just have to assume it's all true because it's the politically correct thing to believe and because the propaganda states that anyone who loves freedom and less government must be a "psychopathic privleged white male homophobic global warming denier neo-republican tea bagger white heterosexual privileged nutbar"... All that love and tolerance, right?
Science has given a lot of great benefits to humanity but it's not infallible, it's still subject to crowd psychology and Social Mood just like any institution.
And Science has now been elevated to the status of RELIGION, in the sense that if you as a civilian won't toe the party line, you're deemed a heretic know-nothing, or worse, driven from political office or your job. High Priests in lab coats with clipboards holding special knowledge that must never be questioned because "after all, we have a CONSENSUS!".
I'm supposed to believe that I magically evolved from a soup of amoebas, today with color vision and the ability to argue with your liberal ass, and yet the amoeba are still there surviving just fine, and this magical event is without any intelligent cause, and no this is not a FAIRY TALE, this is PURE SCIENCE... and we are speculating about things that happened millions of years before humans were on the planet and so no one was there to record or test the theory... so much for the "scientific model" !
And if a governor signs a law that states you can't sue a baker for refusing to celebrate a homosexual marriage based on his religious beliefs, watch out! The economic and political fury from the militant left will rain down hellfire on anyone daring to question this militancy, under the Orwellian horseshit meme of "tolerance" and "respect". I don't think even Orwell could write such compelling dark satire as this.
Actually, property taxes aren't that regressive in the traditional sense, as they are based on the value of your property which, theoretically, you were not only able to purchase in the first place, but are able to continually maintain.
A great example of a regressive tax is something like the sales tax. If Taylor Swift and I both buy the same MacBook, we pay the same tax on it, even though she's worth something like $250,000,000 and I'm -- well -- not.
Actually, you pay property taxes when you rent an apartment. You just aren't the one getting the bill. But it is an expense that has to be covered by your rent, nevertheless. It is not 'free.'
But let's take a wealthier church, for example. Say the church owns a cattle ranch, which runs with volunteer labor. It donates 100% of the meat to food banks, the Red Cross, and other welfare organizations, or it uses the meat to help its own poor. Should the ranch be taxed? What if the ranch is instead owned by the Red Cross?
That's your argument for everything, eh? Obama is half black…. America lowered their standards. Tim Cook is gay… Apple lowered their standards. Indra Nooyi is an Indian-baord woman… pepsi lowered their standards.
Or, a reasonable person would say that it raises the standard when you choose the best person from the largest group people.
PS: I'm guessing you're an American Caucasian male between 40 and 55yo, which is why you're showing your disdain for merit-based opportunities.
Damn you are one of the few people that will admit openly that Obama is half black. No a reasonable person would say a standard should be set and only a person that can meet or exceed that standard should be considered for the job. That's reasonable.
I could care less that Tim Cook is gay. As long as Apple keeps making the products I like and my stock continues to grow he could be a green alien for all I care. I dislike Obama because his polices have failed but that has nothing to do with his race. I voted for Bill Clinton then Bush and I would have voted for Hilary Clinton if she didn't mess up the primary with Obama.
My Mom was the first generation to come over from Italy and was a stay at home Mom until she furthered her education and over time became a director for fairly large nursing home. My farther is from Irish/Germany decent worked two jobs in some cases to support our family. I have a degree form MIT thanks to my parents and a needs based scholarship.
So I don't know I guess I do check off on a census I am white. I guess you got that right but are way off based on how I grew up that I don't believe in giving people opportunities. If you would like to know about my wife and daughter just let me know.
I won't try to guess what you are or make a guess on how you grew up that would just be rude.
Comments
The thread is getting awfully repetitive. What do you think of the LGBT:Mormon compromise in Utah? Granted, no one there is 100% happy with it. But it does show compromise is possible. The main points are this:
1) Same sex marriage will be allowed in Utah.
2) Discrimination in housing or in the workplace on the basis of gender orientation or religious belief is specifically prohibited.
3) Churches will not be forced to perform same sex marriages if they do not want to.
The law does not address the issue of photographers or bakers who do not want to work at same sex wedding celebrations. My belief is that photographers, at least, are protected by First Amendment guarantees of freedom of expression.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/03/17-mormon-lgbt-rights-utah-rauch
How are they different? In fact, they are worse. Besides being terribly regressive, telling people that they cannot meet in their own building to worship unless they pay a tax is a gross violation of the establishment clause. Basically it is saying we only want rich churches around here. You po' people can go meet in another town.
Actually, property taxes aren't that regressive in the traditional sense, as they are based on the value of your property which, theoretically, you were not only able to purchase in the first place, but are able to continually maintain.
A great example of a regressive tax is something like the sales tax. If Taylor Swift and I both buy the same MacBook, we pay the same tax on it, even though she's worth something like $250,000,000 and I'm -- well -- not.
At least you keep your anti-gay, pro-bigotry arguments to a single word.
Not anti gay nor a bigot, just can't believe what you posted.
Not anti gay nor a bigot, just can't believe what you posted.
You do realize that he was being sarcastic, right?
Perhaps the same way science tells us that we are made from stardust and that even our star is not the first star from this matter since the Big Bang.
Thats is a fine theory but the carbon atoms don't improve over time like souls do with Karma.
I would certainly side with you because that's a less complex answer, but we can't rule out the unknown.
I would certainly side with you because that's a less complex answer, but we can't rule out the unknown.
Not ruling out the unknown is not how Buddhists explain Karma. To them it is real.
If I did, I'm sure I had good reason.
Almsot as bad? Almost?! Considering I used sarcasm and hyperbole make a joke I would assume, from your PoV, that it would be a lot worse.
So when one reveals an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of others that calls for their civil rights to be squashed I can't use the term bigot to describe them? That is the very definition of the term.
If you want to believe that homosexuality is a choice, and not a product of nature, that can be cured with counseling and religion, you have that write, and I support you in that right to be a homophobic bigot, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to call you out for what you are… as I have that right.
And? What is the most successful combination of diversity for Apple execs? Should Cook fire everyone so that the sex, genders and skin colours match up to some Cupertino, California, United States, North America, Western Hemisphere, or Earth average? How about instead of "putting lipstick on a pig" by covering up the fact that the various people are less likely to have their aptitude recognized for these positions with forced inclusions at the expense of the company, that Apple works from the bottom up to create change that allows everyone to be given a more even playing field… exactly like they are doing. But this isn't an overnight change and can't be done by Apple along. We, as a society, have to stop being homophobic, have to stop be misogynistic, have to stop thinking our religion and skin colour is the only that matters so we can get the hardest working people with the most aptitude to help push society forward.
@anantksundaram, his comment about Apple executives is another example. Does the fact there as 80% men on Apple's executive team mean that mean are inherently better that business? I don't think so, that are many other cultural reasons at play, and there is no evidence that suggests that women have inferior minds or less leadership potential.
I'm fairly certain I have never used the word bigot or racist online because it's nearly impossible for me to know the morals or ethics of a person based on a few posts. I could disagree with you 110% and would never use those words because those are really strong accusations without truly knowing someone.
I actually don't believe homosexuality is a choice I've been beaten up on this forum for saying I believe it's a product of nature. That makes members on this forum even more upset because then it can only be a defect in nature. Being gay can't be what nature intended because if that was the case procreation would be impossible without science and the species would become extinct. Someone not being able to help how they were born doesn't not mean it was intended by nature to be that way.
The number one instinct of any species is survival of that species. Being sexually attracted to the same gender goes against thats very primal instinct.
I was raised in NYC and I now live in Atlanta, working, interacting seeing gay people kissing is about as common for me as seeing the sky blue and the grass green. Someone can have an opinion or a belief that doesn't mean they are walking around throwing holy water on people calling them sinners.
As far as your diversity comments I was simply pointing out the difference in the two sites.
Apple pushes this diversity issue and it's nothing more then propaganda. For those that want to get all upset about the word propaganda
"information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."
When it comes down to it the real numbers shows their diversity numbers fall in line with other tech companies.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2014/08/13/apple-ceo-tim-cook-is-not-satisfied-with-employee-diversity/
"Even though Apple is hiring more females for executive positions nowadays, the percentage of males in leadership roles is still 72%. As a result, Apple was criticized by shareholders Trillium Asset Management LLC and the Sustainability Group about its lack of diversity within the board of directors. When the complaint was filed in January, former Avon CEO Andrea Jung was Apple’s only female board member. After the shareholder complaint, Apple revised its corporate charter to say it would consider women and minorities as board candidates going forward."
Give me a break this we are so freaking diverse is nothing but bullshit.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/17/technology/diversity-silicon-valley/
"Most of the companies stonewalled us, but the data we were able to get showed what one might expect: Ethnic minorities and women are generally underrepresented, sometimes severely so -- particularly in management roles. White and Asian males often dominate their fields."
Damn does that look like any executive pages i've shown you recently?
The diversity at Apple falls in line with other silicon valley companies. There isn't anything special going on at Apple in terms of diversity. So their diversity page as you put it is nothing more then putting lipstick on a pig.
I'm fairly certain I have never used the word propaganda or publicity stunt online because it's nearly impossible for me to know the morals or ethics of the people behind the cause. I could disagree with you 110% and would never use those words because those are really strong accusations without truly knowing someone. . (See what I did there?)
The number one instinct of any species is survival of that species. Being sexually attracted to the same gender goes against thats very primal instinct.
Perhaps for insects and lower organisms but for humans, mating is not as high of a priority. One usually decides to become married and raise a family after they have secured a position within a community, completed education, become employed, have appropriate shelter and resources. They also choose a compatible mate from a psychological perspective not just anyone of the same species and opposite gender.
I'm fairly certain I have never used the word propaganda or publicity stunt online because it's nearly impossible for me to know the morals or ethics of the people behind the cause. I could disagree with you 110% and would never use those words because those are really strong accusations without truly knowing someone. . (See what I did there?)
I used the word propaganda because it's very clear when someone looks deeper into the diversity numbers. It's even more glaring when diversity started after Apple got called out for not having a diverse team of executives. Also last time I checked Apple is a company not a person.
Diversity always looks awesome at the bottom of the ladder and as you move up like the article says you see far more white and asian males. I know it's now hard for you to debate the numbers which is the reason by your posts is so short. That tends to happen a lot on this forum.
I've seen and lived these kinds of numbers since 1989 and they haven't changed since then. I remember my first management position when I was told about 3 mins into the job that my next two hires had to be black females because the department was made up mostly of white mails and white females. The more Tim Cook tweets about diversity and equal rights the more of a target he is going to put on Apple because they are never going to live up to the hype. You can't hire the best person and keep at certain percentage of diversity at the same time it's an impossible task the higher you get in a company, even more so in a tech company.
Diversity happens in one situation and one situation only, when you lower the standards. Anyone that believes differently is either really foolish or has never worked in management for a large technology company.
There is so much wrong with that statement that I don't want to address him directly. Not that there isn't a general truth to it, but it's, at best, extremely myopic and juvenile. He doesn't address the largest picture of a :smokey: needing to survive as a grouping, as a whole of a species, or even as a complex ecosystem. If it was all about each member passing on their own genes there would be no queen ant or queen bee hierarchy. In fact, some female ants can reproduce through cloning or asexual parthenogenesis without ever needing a mate to produce offspring.
Furthermore, if it's just about producing offspring, then education is bad because this leads to fewer offspring among pair bonds. And if the homosexuality is bad because those pair bonds cannot produce offspring, does that mean we should make it illegal for those that would be unfit parents because of certain physical or mental issues, or those that can't have children? If a sterile couple can adopt, then why not a gay couple? Isn't a child brought up in a loving home better than a child brought up in a group home or an abusive home?
It ignores that homosexuality is natural. It's part of nature. We know that brain chemistry is not the same for all people, and we know that one can be born with male genitalia but have a natural attraction to men, or feel they are female, with and without a natural attraction to male. The same for females. We can deduce this because we know that intersex people exist in nature.
What gets me is this bigoted notion that because it's not the most common scenario it must be wrong, even though there are many other uncommon aspects to human physiology that we either ignore or even cherish.
That's your argument for everything, eh? Obama is half black…. America lowered their standards. Tim Cook is gay… Apple lowered their standards. Indra Nooyi is an Indian-baord woman… pepsi lowered their standards.
Or, a reasonable person would say that it raises the standard when you choose the best person from the largest group people.
PS: I'm guessing you're an American Caucasian male between 40 and 55yo, which is why you're showing your disdain for merit-based opportunities.
That's correct Foggy... Scientists once believed and preached the earth was flat, the earth revolved around the sun, that if you were sick then bloodletting would cure you, that processed foods were ok for human consumption, and as recently as the 1960s, Thalidomide was a real excellent cure for morning sickness in pregnant women. LOL.
And we all know what the Nazi German scientists believed about race.
Today we've got pseudo-scientists like Al Gore and David Suziki living in colossal mansions and flying on private jets to influence government policy, taxation and spending to the tune of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in order to "help save the planet", all the while with major stock holdings in companies that profit from "green energy" and you NEVER hear a left winger discussing their hypocrisy or blatant bias. We just have to assume it's all true because it's the politically correct thing to believe and because the propaganda states that anyone who loves freedom and less government must be a "psychopathic privleged white male homophobic global warming denier neo-republican tea bagger white heterosexual privileged nutbar"... All that love and tolerance, right?
Science has given a lot of great benefits to humanity but it's not infallible, it's still subject to crowd psychology and Social Mood just like any institution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology
And Science has now been elevated to the status of RELIGION, in the sense that if you as a civilian won't toe the party line, you're deemed a heretic know-nothing, or worse, driven from political office or your job. High Priests in lab coats with clipboards holding special knowledge that must never be questioned because "after all, we have a CONSENSUS!".
I'm supposed to believe that I magically evolved from a soup of amoebas, today with color vision and the ability to argue with your liberal ass, and yet the amoeba are still there surviving just fine, and this magical event is without any intelligent cause, and no this is not a FAIRY TALE, this is PURE SCIENCE... and we are speculating about things that happened millions of years before humans were on the planet and so no one was there to record or test the theory... so much for the "scientific model" !
And if a governor signs a law that states you can't sue a baker for refusing to celebrate a homosexual marriage based on his religious beliefs, watch out! The economic and political fury from the militant left will rain down hellfire on anyone daring to question this militancy, under the Orwellian horseshit meme of "tolerance" and "respect". I don't think even Orwell could write such compelling dark satire as this.
I'm late to the party to point out that your post clearly indicates that you have little or no understanding of science. Firstly, there is no place for beliefs in science, since that would go entirely against the fundamental scientific principle (observe, hypothesize, test, refine).
Looking back and laughing at the flat earth model and bloodletting simply shows that you are unable to distinguish science from non-science. The flat earth concept did not arise from anything resembling science - it was an archaic, ignorant assumption. Pointing to more recent assertions, such as in regard to the safety of processed food or harmful drugs, simply conflates science with business self-interest. According to science you are not supposed to believe anything, whether it be the theory of evolution, AGW or the existence of God. The scientific method is to look at the evidence, develop the least complex hypotheses to explain the evidence, and try to break those hypotheses by testing. If you can't break them then eventually you elevate them to the status of working theory. If you start to become invested in a particular hypothesis then you are a poor scientist and, while those certainly exist, they do not represent science.
There is absolutely no comparison to the arbitrary and belief-based thinking that underpins all religion, which immediately fails every logical test that the scientific method imposes. The inability to understand that distinction itself underpins the widespread inability to understand science. Religious beliefs, while perhaps comforting, are entirely illogical for as many reasons as there are different religions, each of them the only real truth according to their proponents, and each of them completely devoid of any supporting evidence.
You were doing fine on socio-encomics. On this subject you are, unfortunately, clueless.
Perhaps for insects and lower organisms but for humans, mating is not as high of a priority. One usually decides to become married and raise a family after they have secured a position within a community, completed education, become employed, have appropriate shelter and resources. They also choose a compatible mate from a psychological perspective not just anyone of the same species and opposite gender.
I would certainly agree that it's not has high of a priority. However that could also be attributed to our population has grown because life expectancy has increased dramatically over the years because of science and medical advancements.
Based on some graphs around 1850 life expectancy was around 37. Insects and lower organisms have not have the advantage of medical advancements. Humans don't have to worry about being in the middle of a food chain being hunted and eaten by other animals. We have a great deal of advantages because or the technology we have created over time.
The reasons are innumerable. The pitfall I'm trying to avoid is a post hoc logical fallacy.
It's not a stretch to think that religion affects culture, literature, governance styles, laws, beliefs, values, and attitudes, all of which, in turn affect work ethic, work habits, impetus to get an education, openness to change, openness to science, tolerance etc. Again, as it has evolved through the years, not necessarily 500 or 700 years ago.
Apparently, there are some famous sociologists that have even studied stuff like this.
But my knowledge -- and hence ability to make a case -- is admittedly limited. Perhaps yours is deeper.
Sure, but it's also affected by it.
Superb post.
Worth repeating.
Actually, property taxes aren't that regressive in the traditional sense, as they are based on the value of your property which, theoretically, you were not only able to purchase in the first place, but are able to continually maintain.
A great example of a regressive tax is something like the sales tax. If Taylor Swift and I both buy the same MacBook, we pay the same tax on it, even though she's worth something like $250,000,000 and I'm -- well -- not.
Actually, you pay property taxes when you rent an apartment. You just aren't the one getting the bill. But it is an expense that has to be covered by your rent, nevertheless. It is not 'free.'
But let's take a wealthier church, for example. Say the church owns a cattle ranch, which runs with volunteer labor. It donates 100% of the meat to food banks, the Red Cross, and other welfare organizations, or it uses the meat to help its own poor. Should the ranch be taxed? What if the ranch is instead owned by the Red Cross?
That's your argument for everything, eh? Obama is half black…. America lowered their standards. Tim Cook is gay… Apple lowered their standards. Indra Nooyi is an Indian-baord woman… pepsi lowered their standards.
Or, a reasonable person would say that it raises the standard when you choose the best person from the largest group people.
PS: I'm guessing you're an American Caucasian male between 40 and 55yo, which is why you're showing your disdain for merit-based opportunities.
Damn you are one of the few people that will admit openly that Obama is half black. No a reasonable person would say a standard should be set and only a person that can meet or exceed that standard should be considered for the job. That's reasonable.
I could care less that Tim Cook is gay. As long as Apple keeps making the products I like and my stock continues to grow he could be a green alien for all I care. I dislike Obama because his polices have failed but that has nothing to do with his race. I voted for Bill Clinton then Bush and I would have voted for Hilary Clinton if she didn't mess up the primary with Obama.
My Mom was the first generation to come over from Italy and was a stay at home Mom until she furthered her education and over time became a director for fairly large nursing home. My farther is from Irish/Germany decent worked two jobs in some cases to support our family. I have a degree form MIT thanks to my parents and a needs based scholarship.
So I don't know I guess I do check off on a census I am white. I guess you got that right but are way off based on how I grew up that I don't believe in giving people opportunities. If you would like to know about my wife and daughter just let me know.
I won't try to guess what you are or make a guess on how you grew up that would just be rude.