mcrain
Apr 27, 08:48 AM
So, 38% of the American people, and a majority of the tea-party just had their "faith" that the President was somehow not legitimate pulled out from under them. If the goal was to fracture the ties that bind that group, the timing couldn't have been better.
With the recent backlash against the Paul budget and attempt to destroy Medicare, what binds the tea party together now? President Obama has agreed to cuts, he tried to avoid the bush tax cuts on the wealthy, but caved to save the middle income tax breaks; now he wants to roll back the tax breaks for the wealthy, eliminating tax breaks for oil companies, and seems willing to consider a lot of other things to deal with the budget and economy. The Republican town hall meetings seem to show that people may finally be realizing that Democrats are actually the party of fiscal responsibility.
I truly hope that the GOP learns from the last 30 years, and especially the last 20 years. Obstructing the other party is not the best way to run the government for the benefit of all of the American people. Compromise is not a bad word. Facts are your friend.
With the recent backlash against the Paul budget and attempt to destroy Medicare, what binds the tea party together now? President Obama has agreed to cuts, he tried to avoid the bush tax cuts on the wealthy, but caved to save the middle income tax breaks; now he wants to roll back the tax breaks for the wealthy, eliminating tax breaks for oil companies, and seems willing to consider a lot of other things to deal with the budget and economy. The Republican town hall meetings seem to show that people may finally be realizing that Democrats are actually the party of fiscal responsibility.
I truly hope that the GOP learns from the last 30 years, and especially the last 20 years. Obstructing the other party is not the best way to run the government for the benefit of all of the American people. Compromise is not a bad word. Facts are your friend.
Nuvi
Apr 11, 12:19 AM
Myspace was never cool.
Okay, okay, so they have done NAB (they've never done AES, though, that I'm certain). But still: They pulled out of everything in the last couple years. Why come back to NAB? Why not just do a small-scale announcement outside of NAB's timeframe so as to maximize press?
Also, nobody answered my initial question. Why the idle timer? There's no point!
Because presenting something ground breaking at NAB will give you huge positive push within the industry. Lets face the facts, FCP needs that huge positive push right here and right now. Apple is sliding the slippery slope at speed of light if they don't bring it with this new version of FCP.
Okay, okay, so they have done NAB (they've never done AES, though, that I'm certain). But still: They pulled out of everything in the last couple years. Why come back to NAB? Why not just do a small-scale announcement outside of NAB's timeframe so as to maximize press?
Also, nobody answered my initial question. Why the idle timer? There's no point!
Because presenting something ground breaking at NAB will give you huge positive push within the industry. Lets face the facts, FCP needs that huge positive push right here and right now. Apple is sliding the slippery slope at speed of light if they don't bring it with this new version of FCP.
rdowns
Apr 28, 08:04 AM
Step out of your little fairytale world
I loves me some irony.
I loves me some irony.
Kelmon
Jul 27, 12:15 PM
I wish people would stop posting these articles. Every time I read a new one talking about Merom and new MacBook Pros I end up soiling my pants. Frankly, my wife is starting to complain...
Winnychan213
Apr 11, 05:47 PM
All i want for iphone 5 is dual core and 1GB ram, was hoping that Apple would do a silent update like they did for the macbook series.
CaoCao
Mar 4, 01:46 PM
This is true because you say it's true?
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
A bit of delay in my response because I had to look it up, but thanks for letting us have this right for 7 years now..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Red = Sodomy Laws struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003
And yet I doubt Macaroony sees opposite-sex attractions as immoral or placing oneself in grave danger. I know what your religious beliefs tell you, and it is your right to follow those as explicitly as you are legally able. But why does that have to impact the rest of the world when you know many of them share different beliefs and have different experiences?
Personally, I think people who believe in gods are weak-minded fools. But I would never support a law that mandated atheism or banned religious gatherings. Because these religious things, while they are not in line with my worldview, do not impact my way of life directly, and allow people to live how they think they need to, not how I think they need to.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture a guess that you don't have a non-biased fact source for a retarded statement like that. :rolleyes:
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
Source?
:rolleyes:
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
A bit of delay in my response because I had to look it up, but thanks for letting us have this right for 7 years now..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg/400px-Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg.png
Red = Sodomy Laws struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2003
And yet I doubt Macaroony sees opposite-sex attractions as immoral or placing oneself in grave danger. I know what your religious beliefs tell you, and it is your right to follow those as explicitly as you are legally able. But why does that have to impact the rest of the world when you know many of them share different beliefs and have different experiences?
Personally, I think people who believe in gods are weak-minded fools. But I would never support a law that mandated atheism or banned religious gatherings. Because these religious things, while they are not in line with my worldview, do not impact my way of life directly, and allow people to live how they think they need to, not how I think they need to.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and venture a guess that you don't have a non-biased fact source for a retarded statement like that. :rolleyes:
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
Logic is my source. Society needs people, no people means no society. If there were no more babies society would eventually collapse.
Source?
:rolleyes:
BC2009
Apr 12, 05:42 PM
That is what the 49$ 3GS is for...
My buddy just got one the other day. Why cause it was 49 bucks...
and i got an HTC INspire for $20 that is better than my old 3GS
I think the $49 3Gs is AT&T's attempt to offer something that Verizon does not. Previous to Verizon getting the iPhone, the cheapest iPhone price was $99, and once the iPhone 5 comes out, I expect that there will no longer be a $49 iPhone option.
Offering a two-year old model at a discount is not what I call a deal -- and mind you -- I own a 32GB iPhone 3Gs while I am awaiting the iPhone 5. I love my iPhone 3Gs, but I would not advise anybody to buy one today with the iPhone 5 just around the corner.
Apple would do better creating a trendy newly-released iPhone-nano for a lower price and perhaps use iAd to help monetize it (the same way Amazon is doing with Kindle). Teens would much rather own a trendy new phone than a two-year old model that looks dated when held up next to its successor -- but that is just my guess at what the market would do -- I am certainly not all-knowing.
My buddy just got one the other day. Why cause it was 49 bucks...
and i got an HTC INspire for $20 that is better than my old 3GS
I think the $49 3Gs is AT&T's attempt to offer something that Verizon does not. Previous to Verizon getting the iPhone, the cheapest iPhone price was $99, and once the iPhone 5 comes out, I expect that there will no longer be a $49 iPhone option.
Offering a two-year old model at a discount is not what I call a deal -- and mind you -- I own a 32GB iPhone 3Gs while I am awaiting the iPhone 5. I love my iPhone 3Gs, but I would not advise anybody to buy one today with the iPhone 5 just around the corner.
Apple would do better creating a trendy newly-released iPhone-nano for a lower price and perhaps use iAd to help monetize it (the same way Amazon is doing with Kindle). Teens would much rather own a trendy new phone than a two-year old model that looks dated when held up next to its successor -- but that is just my guess at what the market would do -- I am certainly not all-knowing.
decimortis
Apr 6, 10:38 AM
I loves me my 11.6 ultimate and it hasn't let me down yet in the power department for my work with CS5, but of course, updated more faster, more shiny MBA's are always welcome. Can't say I'll upgrade but nice to see them progressing.
D.
D.
padr�
Sep 19, 12:39 PM
thx for your reply,
i will go for the mac pro quad know (i'm updating my home computer wich is a G3, but i'm used to work on a dual G5 for my projects) and yeah i will allways be able then to update later, but how about ram, when DDR3 comes out, i read that its going to replace FB-DIMMs so will that be upgradeble too???
cause these FB-DIMMS are so ********** expensive :) thx
i will go for the mac pro quad know (i'm updating my home computer wich is a G3, but i'm used to work on a dual G5 for my projects) and yeah i will allways be able then to update later, but how about ram, when DDR3 comes out, i read that its going to replace FB-DIMMs so will that be upgradeble too???
cause these FB-DIMMS are so ********** expensive :) thx
Ahheck01
Apr 12, 10:27 AM
The SuperMeet stage show aka FCP (or if **** hits the fan then iMovie Pro) preview begins at 7 pm.
7pm Vegas Time? If so, for others scheduling your availability like me :cool::
Pacific Time: 7:00pm
Mountain Time: 8:00pm
Central Time: 9:00pm
Eastern Time: 10:00pm
7pm Vegas Time? If so, for others scheduling your availability like me :cool::
Pacific Time: 7:00pm
Mountain Time: 8:00pm
Central Time: 9:00pm
Eastern Time: 10:00pm
Zadillo
Aug 7, 03:35 PM
anyone else a little underwhelmed with today's WWDC? There isn't anything that really jumped out at me besides the Mac Pro.
I don't know what there is to be underwhelmed about; the rumor has basically been that the main things being covered here would be the Mac Pro (which exceeded my expectations) and the first real glimpse at Leopard (which looks very cool from what I've seen). I didn't find either the Mac Pro or Leopard to be underwhelming, so I don't see anything that would make me feel underwhelmed.
I guess I would be underwhelmed if I had mistaken WWDC for Macworld or something, and expected a bunch of major new product announcements.
I don't know what there is to be underwhelmed about; the rumor has basically been that the main things being covered here would be the Mac Pro (which exceeded my expectations) and the first real glimpse at Leopard (which looks very cool from what I've seen). I didn't find either the Mac Pro or Leopard to be underwhelming, so I don't see anything that would make me feel underwhelmed.
I guess I would be underwhelmed if I had mistaken WWDC for Macworld or something, and expected a bunch of major new product announcements.
sconnor99
Apr 11, 09:05 AM
Anticipating an exodus, Avid are now offering FCP users a huge discount on Media Composer Software
greenstork
Jul 31, 12:05 PM
Update this august... not likely. It will be all pro. Any consumer will be Paris Expo. The imac G5 was launched there. why not a Core 2 Duo iMac?
Why not? Cost...
The prices of the Yonahs just dropped precipitously, thereby increasing Apple's margins on their line of computers in mid product cycle. They'll be selling fewer iMacs anyway because everyone will want the fanciest MB Pros and Mac Pros with the super fast Intel chips. To make up for selling fewer iMacs, they'll be raking in higher margins on each computer.
Look for consumer model speed bumps ahead of the holiday season.
Why not? Cost...
The prices of the Yonahs just dropped precipitously, thereby increasing Apple's margins on their line of computers in mid product cycle. They'll be selling fewer iMacs anyway because everyone will want the fanciest MB Pros and Mac Pros with the super fast Intel chips. To make up for selling fewer iMacs, they'll be raking in higher margins on each computer.
Look for consumer model speed bumps ahead of the holiday season.
JoshH
Aug 7, 02:06 PM
Looks like a good time to let my PM D1.25Ghz G4 retire... The new MP must be at least 10 times faster. :eek:
Apple store up again. The old PM G5 seem to be gone.
Me too. I've tortured my poor PM dual 867 long enough. Retirement would be good.
... in a nice place where she'd be treated well, of course.
Apple store up again. The old PM G5 seem to be gone.
Me too. I've tortured my poor PM dual 867 long enough. Retirement would be good.
... in a nice place where she'd be treated well, of course.
ahuman7341
Aug 5, 05:57 PM
BitTorrent seems very NO!
The main reson I don't like the idea of it is the security issues. I Also think Apple will be aware of the security issues so I doubt that software update will use BitTorrent. Although Apple may have a client that comes with leopard or in iTunes.
The main reson I don't like the idea of it is the security issues. I Also think Apple will be aware of the security issues so I doubt that software update will use BitTorrent. Although Apple may have a client that comes with leopard or in iTunes.
0815
Apr 25, 01:43 PM
wow, this has officially been blown out of proportion!
The sad thing is that I'm not even surprised by this.
I hope they also filed a lawsuit against every single cell phone carrier, internet provider and other phone/phoneos providers.
The sad thing is that I'm not even surprised by this.
I hope they also filed a lawsuit against every single cell phone carrier, internet provider and other phone/phoneos providers.
aswitcher
Aug 6, 12:26 PM
Another sad person who is worried about their machines not being top of the line :-\
Clearly you are not a Geek!
Clearly you are not a Geek!
NAG
Mar 31, 04:45 PM
I don't think it is evil. It is crazy for people to pretend like Google makes Android to be benevolent and help the world. They have financial motives, and they have to protect their interests. Removing Google as search is probably going to be a huge no-no. It is kind of dumb that anyone has even tried to do that... That is part of the problem. Some of the carriers/manufacturers are stupid.
They have disrespected what Google has done for them and forced Google to clamp down. When someone gives you something for free and does a lot of work for you, you can at least respect their position and understand when you do things that might be stepping on their toes.
That is the real problem with the android commodity market though. It is not google, it is all the second rate manufacturers who sucked at making smartphones before Apple and Google, and continue to do dumb things to this day.
You mix a more general usage based OS with a hardware marketplace filled with knuckleheads, and you end up with the mess that is the Android hardware market and ecosystem.
That was a hoot changing the search to Bing. Only thing gutsier would be to somehow replace every admob ad to a competitor.
I wouldn't leave Google completely blameless here. They knew who they were dealing with. They need eyeballs to sell (ad business) so they made their bed. Same reason why the software marketplace on android sucks, they designed it for their bottom line (eyeballs). They aren't making a product for people to use, they're making a channel to deliver a product (eyeballs) to their customers (advertisers).
They have disrespected what Google has done for them and forced Google to clamp down. When someone gives you something for free and does a lot of work for you, you can at least respect their position and understand when you do things that might be stepping on their toes.
That is the real problem with the android commodity market though. It is not google, it is all the second rate manufacturers who sucked at making smartphones before Apple and Google, and continue to do dumb things to this day.
You mix a more general usage based OS with a hardware marketplace filled with knuckleheads, and you end up with the mess that is the Android hardware market and ecosystem.
That was a hoot changing the search to Bing. Only thing gutsier would be to somehow replace every admob ad to a competitor.
I wouldn't leave Google completely blameless here. They knew who they were dealing with. They need eyeballs to sell (ad business) so they made their bed. Same reason why the software marketplace on android sucks, they designed it for their bottom line (eyeballs). They aren't making a product for people to use, they're making a channel to deliver a product (eyeballs) to their customers (advertisers).
twoodcc
Aug 9, 08:38 PM
In terms of driving/racing sim, any SimBin racer wipes the floor with the GT series.
i have never heard of SimBin, but looking at the website, it doesn't look bad. do any of their games work in Mac OS X?
given that its been out for 10 years, i think it would have sold a fair few no matter what :rolleyes: i preferred GT3 A-Spec over anything else.
do we have an official date yet? or will that be pushed back too :D
yes it has been out for awhile, but they still haven't released the 5th game yet (not including demos). so either way, there's only 4 versions of the game out. at over 57 million copies sold, i'd say they sold a fair few...
and yeah they have been known to push back dates, i sure hope that they don't
If sales are the judge of a games greatness, then Mario Kart on the Wii is the greatest racing game of all time. No doubt about it. The number of copies sold backs that up. Sorry GT.
mario kart is a different type of racing game, geared towards a different audience. i like mario kart as well.
i'm not saying sales are the only factor, but when you get to the level of Gran Turismo, that's when vendors start making real cars just for the game...
i have never heard of SimBin, but looking at the website, it doesn't look bad. do any of their games work in Mac OS X?
given that its been out for 10 years, i think it would have sold a fair few no matter what :rolleyes: i preferred GT3 A-Spec over anything else.
do we have an official date yet? or will that be pushed back too :D
yes it has been out for awhile, but they still haven't released the 5th game yet (not including demos). so either way, there's only 4 versions of the game out. at over 57 million copies sold, i'd say they sold a fair few...
and yeah they have been known to push back dates, i sure hope that they don't
If sales are the judge of a games greatness, then Mario Kart on the Wii is the greatest racing game of all time. No doubt about it. The number of copies sold backs that up. Sorry GT.
mario kart is a different type of racing game, geared towards a different audience. i like mario kart as well.
i'm not saying sales are the only factor, but when you get to the level of Gran Turismo, that's when vendors start making real cars just for the game...
skunk
Mar 4, 03:27 AM
Invalid because it endorses something that could cause the collapse of society
What? One person being gay is going to destroy society?? We are SO screwed!
What? One person being gay is going to destroy society?? We are SO screwed!
Earendil
Jun 8, 07:40 PM
Why would there be any difference? Do Cheese Doodles purchased form the Piggly Wiggly taste any better than those purchased from Publix?
No, I suspect that Apple's quality control is good enough that an iPhone bought at AT&T and one bought from Radio Shack will taste identical.
No advantages. I mean what does it matter? If it's the white Apple bag you want I can send you one. Eventually they become useless.
I was thinking more along the lines of Warranties. The Apple one will hold no matter what, I would imagine. But I didn't know if Radio Shack, for example, generally has extended services above and beyond the manufacturers.
Or perhaps when an iPhone is bought from Apple a certain amount of data is stored at the time of purchase (like the date) that would make future warranty claims go smoother.
I could not care less about white baggies or taste differences.
No, I suspect that Apple's quality control is good enough that an iPhone bought at AT&T and one bought from Radio Shack will taste identical.
No advantages. I mean what does it matter? If it's the white Apple bag you want I can send you one. Eventually they become useless.
I was thinking more along the lines of Warranties. The Apple one will hold no matter what, I would imagine. But I didn't know if Radio Shack, for example, generally has extended services above and beyond the manufacturers.
Or perhaps when an iPhone is bought from Apple a certain amount of data is stored at the time of purchase (like the date) that would make future warranty claims go smoother.
I could not care less about white baggies or taste differences.
ChrisA
Aug 7, 06:13 PM
I wonder how "Time Machine" is implemented. I miss having a feature like this. I used VAX/VMS back in the early 1980's (before UNIX became popular) and of course VMS keept histories of files. So if I was editing a file and saved it I could always get any of the old versions back. It was great. The feature was built into the file system and of course all the applications used the file system. Finally now 20+ years later we get this feature. From experiance I can say the for certain, _everyone_ will like this and come to depend on it. The second part "come to depend on it" will be more true than many of you now think.
Sydde
Apr 27, 06:17 PM
The bigger deal here is the tendency of some fathers to name their kids the EXACT same name they have and add a "2nd". I've always thought that practice couldn't be stupidier. :P
Reminds me of how the producers felt compelled to drop the three from the movie "The Madness of King George III" because they were afraid people would give a pass as they had not seen the first two parts.
Reminds me of how the producers felt compelled to drop the three from the movie "The Madness of King George III" because they were afraid people would give a pass as they had not seen the first two parts.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 10:05 AM
And I don't see the point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex, but since society tells me it's "normal" I live with it nonetheless. It's all a matter of perception and experience. You have yours, I have mine and they're both normal to us.
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
