2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Well we know the church has always been anti-science. Heck as far back as the 16th century Galileo was ostracized by the church when he had the gall to suggest that the Earth might actually rotate around the sun.

That's only semi-correct. The Church's own scholars quietly confirmed many of his findings, they just didn't like him shouting the results of his research to the four corners of the earth without the Pope's approval/control/spin. Hence, his trial and imprisonment.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Well we know the church has always been anti-science. Heck as far back as the 16th century Galileo was ostracized by the church when he had the gall to suggest that the Earth might actually rotate around the sun.

My favorite historical figure. By far.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Bob's inclinations to speak out in a bigoted manner against gays may be beyond his control, but his actually doing so is a choice.

Is that the logic we're going with?

Winner!

 

[unofan]

Exactly right. But I didn't read back far enough to see anything bigoted from him, I was actually trying to support the point I saw him making about alcoholism.

I'd say comparing homosexuality to alcoholism is a pretty good start. Substitute miscegenation for homosexuality and see if it passes the smell test.

 

[geezer]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I'd say comparing homosexuality to alcoholism is a pretty good start. Substitute miscegenation for homosexuality and see if it passes the smell test.

I see your point, alcoholism has an overriding negative connotation that implies negative judgment. Try this: being born with an altruistic personality is a chance of nature, but giving money to charity is a choice you have to make consciously.
IMO, it's great to admit that we're born the way we're born, but it can be dangerous to say we're not responsible for the actions we take. In general.

 

[unofan]

I see your point, alcoholism has an overriding negative connotation that implies negative judgment. Try this: being born with an altruistic personality is a chance of nature, but giving money to charity is a choice you have to make consciously.
IMO, it's great to admit that we're born the way we're born, but it can be dangerous to say we're not responsible for the actions we take. In general.

Exactly. Comparing an act or trait to alcoholism inherently presumes negativity.

Comparing it to not eating a chocolate cake inherently trivializes it.

I'm guessing Bob would be upset if I said his choice of religion is no different or of no more importance than me choosing to wear jeans to work today.

He and Gov. Perry are trying to be clever, but it's really not a good argument.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Let's not trivialize the jeans choice, okay? There should at least be something we can agree upon!

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

That's only semi-correct. The Church's own scholars quietly confirmed many of his findings, they just didn't like him shouting the results of his research to the four corners of the earth without the Pope's approval/control/spin. Hence, his trial and imprisonment.

However, that is precisely what was anti-science. The idea that it is authority, rather than the scientific method, that decides what constitutes truth is the whole ball game. Had Ptolemy been right and Copernicus wrong, and the church had defended Ptolemy as a matter of dogma, they would have been just as anti-science even though they were accidentally correct in the instance.

There's a better argument against the blanket statement that the church was "always" anti-science. Many proto-scientific theories and practices began with churchmen sincerely trying to discover the working of nature (they began from the non-falsifiable assumption that nature was dictated by God but that in itself isn't a problem -- after all, both churchmen and naturalists begin from the non-falsifiable assumption that nature has ontological reality). Also, the church was for a fairly long period of time (at least from the 10th through 13th centuries) the only western institution that pursued anything like rigorous, scientific inquiry. It was often tinged or corrupted by religion, but in the same way as say today's scientific institutions are tinged or corrupted by commerce.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Oh! The humanity of it all!! Correspondents of the world, UNITE!
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/t...ork-at-nbc-and-twitter-went-wild/?tid=HP_more

Edit: Backups? We don't have stinkin' backups!

 

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I think we need W Wildcard here to speak to the difficulty of determining how you determine who is gay or hetero in light of the complexity of determining how you go about defining a person as male or female.

Aside form the easy calls like gopher fans, who are all girls.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Is there really scientific evidence either way when it comes to nature/nurture?

I mean, have we found "teh gayez gene" yet?

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Is there really scientific evidence either way when it comes to nature/nurture?

I mean, have we found "teh gayez gene" yet?

At what age did you decide to be straight? What did your parents say when you broke the news to them?

On another topic, I have an idea. Many of the same people complaining about the impending Civil War in Iraq are also those who love their guns. Why don't they go fight in the Civil War (it really doesn't matter for whom - there are plenty of sides to choose) where they can carry their guns wherever they want and fire as many rounds as they want?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Is there really scientific evidence either way when it comes to nature/nurture?

I mean, have we found "teh gayez gene" yet?

No, no gene has yet been found. However, psychologists have hooked up gay men and women to wires in order to measure responses to various images. They would show regular things like buildings, landscapes, and then men and women in various states of provocative nature, from fully dressed to nude or mostly nude, with neutral looks on their faces to the come-hither looks, and they found that gay mens' brains responded to the pictures of men the same way straight men responded to the pictures of women, and vice versa with the lesbians. What the study showed is that it truly is a physiological difference between gay and straight people, which in turn indicates that it's not a choice.

 

[joecct]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

On another topic, I have an idea. Many of the same people complaining about the impending Civil War in Iraq are also those who love their guns. Why don't they go fight in the Civil War (it really doesn't matter for whom - there are plenty of sides to choose) where they can carry their guns wherever they want and fire as many rounds as they want?

Didn't we do that in the 30's during the Spanish Civil War?

 

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

No, no gene has yet been found. However, psychologists have hooked up gay men and women to wires in order to measure responses to various images. They would show regular things like buildings, landscapes, and then men and women in various states of provocative nature, from fully dressed to nude or mostly nude, with neutral looks on their faces to the come-hither looks, and they found that gay mens' brains responded to the pictures of men the same way straight men responded to the pictures of women, and vice versa with the lesbians. What the study showed is that it truly is a physiological difference between gay and straight people, which in turn indicates that it's not a choice.

What if you show a gay man a picture of a woman dressed provocatively and convincingly like a man?

 

[Critical Thinker]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Well we know the church has always been anti-science. Heck as far back as the 16th century Galileo was ostracized by the church when he had the gall to suggest that the Earth might actually rotate around the sun.

Get your facts straight. No institution in the Western Hemisphere has done more to advance scientific knowledge. You can't use the one Galileo bit to conclude the Church hates science.

 

[dxmnkd316]

At what age did you decide to be straight? What did your parents say when you broke the news to them?

I think you've completely misinterpreted what I was saying. People kept throwing the word science around and I couldn't recall any actual studies or experiments done. So I was hoping someone could help me out either way.

 

[Foxton]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Get your facts straight. No institution in the Western Hemisphere has done more to advance scientific knowledge. You can't use the one Galileo bit to conclude the Church hates science.

Western hemisphere? No ragrets, huh?

 

[burd]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Get your facts straight. No institution in the Western Hemisphere has done more to advance scientific knowledge. You can't use the one Galileo bit to conclude the Church hates science.

Now there's one statement that might be just a bit difficult to defend.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Get your facts straight. No institution in the Western Hemisphere has done more to advance scientific knowledge. You can't use the one Galileo bit to conclude the Church hates science.

Did you fall and hit your head on something hard? Call 911 and get help.