h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<> (me)

<> (toxxin)

I didn't assume anything. I saw the post. It wasn't me who yikes'd it but I agree that it should have been removed. And as you would have received an email from h2g2 informing you this post was removed, you cannot say you were unaware of it (unless you want to 'pull an Apple' and say the email must have got lost somehow).

As for those other emails and the IMs - how do you know they weren't shown to others?

<>

What I disapprove of is your past and continued harrassment of someone who wants nothing to do with you and who very clearly asked you to stop. And yes, describing her or mentioning her in any way *is* seen as unwanted and creepy attention, and not only by me.


az

"There's just no discussing certain issues with some people. Still, that would explain other unusual beliefs I guess. "

Were you referring to Jez's religious beliefs i.e. of being a Heathen? If so, you would include me in this slur and, to some degree, Math. Although he is not a Heathen, there is a lot of overlap between our faith and his form of druidry.

It seems rather irrational to me to say that certain forms of behaviour merit certain forms of belief. I am not sure I see the connection. Would you like to explain it? It certainly seems to be the right topic for this thread.

I haven't read the rest of the thread, I'm just answering the initial question with a resounding 'Fiction.' Just like Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. Can humankind please move on and leave this theological piffle behind? Or are we all destined to be expected to say 'bless you' whenever someone sneezes?

"I am criticised for lustful intentions. Feminists seem to be attributing supernatural capabilities to normal males now!"

is it just me, or is this another example of complete irrationality??

How does criticism of lustful intentions = Feminist

and, even if it does,

How does "Feminist" come to imply that the charge may be disregarded.

Another wonky ad hominem argument, methinks...

Lustful intentions are the driving force of the human (and every other) race. Without them, non of would be here.

Lustful intentions are the driving force of the human (and every other) race. Without them, none of us would be here.

So are we going to vote on the perceived creepy intentions of one another or can we stop behaving like politicians and get back to the thread?

re: handwritten information passed down through time-I was taught that the Torah is such a document. I have seen many in my travels, some incredibly old though I can't recall their ages. When these are used there is a device - it's name escapes me - that is used to point to the words being read [more like a chant or song than simply reading] so the hands don't contact the scroll as this would lead to decay or possible smudging. Damaged scrolls are destroyed, for the possibility of misinterpretation is too great. Odd that the study of the scrolls is based on arguing individual interpretations of translations, though some people still try and live today using the archaic versions of the language. Scrolls are allegedly copied by scholars manually and reviewed for corretness, and any deviation no matter how slight is grounds for destruction. If all documents were given this respect then I might be more comfortable believing them, but I can't buy that the torah has never, ever changed in thousands of years. I certainly can't buy that other documents not afforded such a strict religious duplication scheme are viable copies.

'Scrolls' are interpreted to the favour of those who hold them, and therefore have no real relevance.

The law here doesn't use the term 'pornography'. However, it's illegal 'to take or to make indecent photographs ...'. If the photograph is taken in another country, it isn't an offence here. Publishing a book in this country is *not* 'taking or making'. Downloading in this country *is* 'making', because a further copy of the image is made. That's just how the law works here.



I did attempt to sue the police at the time. I've only recently discovered who reported me. I can't afford to go to law about it.

Sorry, I only just spotted this message Dr J.

toxx

><> (toxxin)

I didn't assume anything. I saw the post. It wasn't me who yikes'd it but I agree that it should have been removed. And as you would have received an email from h2g2 informing you this post was removed, you cannot say you were unaware of it (unless you want to 'pull an Apple' and say the email must have got lost somehow).<

I don't check institutional email unless it's from the bank or an expected authorisation code.



Because there's nothing of interest to anyone else there; and if anyone believes differently, they'd have said so and/or quoted them.

toxx

Well, to you maybe. [To me, absolutely, as I don't buy any of it.] I don't think you should say this around your local temple though, unless you'd like a history lesson on just how relevant the Torah is to the Jewish people.

<>

Not necessarily.


az

<"There's just no discussing certain issues with some people. Still, that would explain other unusual beliefs I guess. "

Were you referring to Jez's religious beliefs i.e. of being a Heathen? If so, you would include me in this slur and, to some degree, Math. Although he is not a Heathen, there is a lot of overlap between our faith and his form of druidry.>

Thanks for a reasonable question, HS. I don't think it's a 'slur' to comment that someone has unusual beliefs. Those who do are usually happy that it is so. Math is certainly content to be regarded as eccentric. So am I, for that matter.



An 'ad hominem' argument attacks the arguer rather than the point. The point may, however, be closely related to the belief system of the arguer. Here the 'ad hominem' distinction appears to me to break down somewhat. If anyone can clarify, I'd be grateful, but it seems that how we behave relates strongly to what we suppose to be the consequeces of that behaviour, what we believe already to be the case (the initial conditions) and what we believe is right or wrong.

Given an unusual belief set, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the remainder of that belief set is also such as to accommodate the known unusual elements.

toxx

That's ok, I miss a lot trying to keep up too. Over here the TV is full of ads for lawyers who will sue for you and not charge a dime if they don't collect; all day, all night..."...Have you been injured? Call me, I'll fight for you...". Couple the 1-800 or 888 or any other toll free prefix with 'lawyers', 'injured' or other like words and you'll get a lawyer on the phone. There's a lot to dislike about the pigs [police] over here. Yes, we still call them pigs, many are morbidly obese and couldn't chase a guy in a wheelchair, much less get out of the patrol car in a hurry. Few have any education beyond high school [12th year].

Indeed not. But my purely probabilistic inference would appear to be a reasonable one, given the information currently available to me.

toxx

Jewish people religiously, or culturally? I can't help thinking that the sooner the difference between culure and belief are acknowledged, the sooner we can get on with being oursleves.

Two points, roymondo:

1. Lustful intentions, however natural they may be, are not ok when misused.

2. The Jewish religion and culture are very much entwined, and it is virtually impossible to have one without the other (though I manage it somehow). See, the reason we have a Jewish culture is that a huge part of the religion is that Jews are God's chosen people, to condense a large part of the Old Testament into one sentence. So it's important that Judaism stay within the family, and that's why if your mother's Jewish you're Jewish, and why we can be 'ethnically Jewish' as well as religiously Jewish.

Oh, and there's actually a third point.

We don't know what's out there. I see no evidence that tells me that there is a god(s), but nor do I see any evidence that tells me there *isn't*. All I can do is keep an open mind, which is what we try to do here on this thread. (BTW, you don't want to read the whole backlog - we've been at it since 2002!) We speculate and argue about our individual interpretations, which is all we really can do, since we can't prove or disprove anything conclusively with the present state of affairs.

Though on a personal note, I have to say that there is less evidence for God than against it.

<"I am criticised for lustful intentions. Feminists seem to be attributing supernatural capabilities to normal males now!"

is it just me, or is this another example of complete irrationality??

How does criticism of lustful intentions = Feminist>

This all goes back to the evolutionarily derived differences between the sexes. Females are biased towards nurturing the young; males to attracting females, and to caring for and protecting them. One form of feminism tends to decry male characteristics it doesn't like, and to deny those that would otherwise seem to them to be creditable. Propaganda along these lines is to heard every day on the radio.

As Roymondo says, lustful intentions are just fine and natural. Assumption and then criticism of them is something I particularly attribute to this form of feminism.



It is the implausibility of the assumption that suggests the vacuity of the charge. Lustful intentions evolved to be triggered by the sensory awareness and proximity of a suitable female. Without these stimuli, and not even the prospect of them, the assumption seems to be totally unfounded.

Admittedly, I am relying on the assumption of the truth of a theory myself. I do so in order to understand why certain charges are made. This might be seen as 'ad hominem', but I've already mentioned how this category breaks down in the face of certain belief sets or subsets.

toxx

1)If lustful intentions are realised consentualy, how can that be a problem?

2) To paraphrase Richard Dawkins' argument, a Jewish child can't exist, only a child of Jewish parents. Just as a child of birdwatching parents is not destined to be a birdwatcher. The culture seems to swallow people up (and I use Judaism as a non specific example).

3) The belief thing is largely tied into 2), and is something I really don't want to get in to now!

1. Lustful intentions are not always consensual. We do not live in a perfect world.

2. Forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand what you're saying about Jewish child/Jewish parents. Because my mother is Jewish, I'm Jewish - just like my father is of Scots descent, so I've got Scottish blood too. My family is not religious, but my Jewish ethnicity is just like any one else's Russian or Chinese or African roots. Being Jewish doesn't just connect you to a schule (synagogue), it connects you to a community. I have never been bat mitzvahed, I've never even been to High Holidays services - but I'm still Jewish because my mother is Jewish and I belong to a Jewish community.