Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Geeks and Gays

newstilt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 232 posts

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#171

Post by elblanco »

jjs wrote: post #165
elblanco wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For guys? It works pretty well, close to 100%. If you can stand up for yourself, even "losing" a fight will usually put a stop to the bullying. The desire not to get hurt, even as a fight "winner", will typically prevent most bullies from engaging in the behavior. Self-preservation is a powerful motivator. Bullies seem to try and pick most subjects to pick on because they believe that subject won't fight back. Once t…

I knew, because of that, that if I was called out to a fight, I could show up at the designated time and place and give what I could. Whenever someone would try to designate a time and place, my response was invariably, "No. Right now." I thereby avoided the scenario where I won the fight in private but the challenger publicly claimed victory anyway. It also cut down the number of challengers very quickly. I didn't h…

I kinda wish I could get in my time machine and use that instead. I would have been much less painful on my nose and far fewer broken pairs of glasses.

Somehow, I never thought of doing that at the time.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#172

Post by defenestrator »

tsally wrote: post #54

A thought: Alan Turing died when he was 41. Anything Turing would have invented between 41 and his natural death are things lost to society because of the persecution of homosexuals. What an incredible cost.

I didn't even know he was a homosexual. Nor does it matter.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#173

Post by doki_pen »

tsally wrote: post #95
bdr wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if he'd just been an ordinary guy? I think the damage to his life and the lives of those who knew him is more important than what he would have invented.

Just to be clear, subjecting someone of lesser brilliance (99.9999999% of the population) to Turing's treatment would be equally immoral. Seriously destabilizing a suicidal person is murder and on a moral level I don't believe in claiming that a particular murder is more or less immoral than another. Murder is murder and I don't think you can compare magnitudes. So if he had been an ordinary guy, his murder would sti…

Doesn't murder require intent? Are you saying that the government planned on destabili+ng him in order to make him commit suicide? Am I just thinking of murder 1?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#174

Post by joubert »

jacquesm wrote: post #133
joubert wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if i get a surrogate and we have a child, and my gay partner wants to adopt the baby so that we are both legal parents, surely it make no sense to deny the adoption?

I don't think that holds water. Gay rights are great, but childrens rights are greater. If there is any doubt about the rights of either group being infringed on by 'experimenting' then you have an immediate problem because nobody will sign off on experimenting on children to see if in the long term it will matter or not. If there would be large numbers of cases proving that it essentially makes no difference then th…

So you're saying my gay partner should not be allowed to adopt my biological kid to provide a stable legal environment?

In another scenario, isn't it better for a gay child in foster care to be adopted by gay parents than by straight parents?

When you say "peer pressure", is that just a euphemism for bullying?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#175

Post by joubert »

tome wrote: post #148
joubert wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if i get a surrogate and we have a child, and my gay partner wants to adopt the baby so that we are both legal parents, surely it make no sense to deny the adoption?

It would make sense not to allow you (not you personally, in fact anyone) to have a child with a "surrogate", i.e. a mother who deliberatly chooses before conception to play no role in raising that child.

So a straight couple who can't have kids should be barred from using a surrogate?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#176

Post by joubert »

hoelle wrote: post #109
caryme wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying that all people are created equally does not mean that all people are free from error or consequence.

Right, what about those who claim being homosexual is a choice? To blur the line more, what about killers who are insane?

If homosexuality is a choice, then i don't understand why not more people choose it - it is fabulous.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#177

Post by joubert »

MartinCron wrote: post #99
pbiggar wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found that geeks tend to be either very religious, or very atheist, but rarely in between (or at least much more rarely than in real life). Perhaps it is the same with other moral issues. (Alternatively, perhaps JGC is very religious, and his religion guides his views on gay adoption and marriage.)

What? Being theist or atheist is not a moral issue, it's a philosophical issue about the nature of the universe. The notion that atheists are less moral than theists is a common misconception.

I would argue it is more moral to be atheistic than to believe in some god.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#178

Post by joubert »

tsally wrote: post #116
joubert wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if i get a surrogate and we have a child, and my gay partner wants to adopt the baby so that we are both legal parents, surely it make no sense to deny the adoption?

The argument I mentioned is concerned with psychological development not biological. I don't see how what your saying relates to the argument in any sense. Based on the argument, it would make sense to deny the adoption in your scenario. To present the argument again, because homosexual parenting hasn't been extensively studied, we need to avoid homosexual adoption until a foundation of research can be established in…

I think gays should boycott jurisdictions that bar them from getting married or adopting.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#179

Post by tome »

joubert wrote: post #175
tome wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would make sense not to allow you (not you personally, in fact anyone) to have a child with a "surrogate", i.e. a mother who deliberatly chooses before conception to play no role in raising that child.

So a straight couple who can't have kids should be barred from using a surrogate?

Sure, I believe that no person should be conceived with the deliberate intention of one or both of his/her genetic parents* playing a fully meaningful parenting role in his/her life.

*or gestational mother in the case of a non-traditional surrogate

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#180

Post by astine »

MartinCron wrote: post #99
pbiggar wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found that geeks tend to be either very religious, or very atheist, but rarely in between (or at least much more rarely than in real life). Perhaps it is the same with other moral issues. (Alternatively, perhaps JGC is very religious, and his religion guides his views on gay adoption and marriage.)

What? Being theist or atheist is not a moral issue, it's a philosophical issue about the nature of the universe. The notion that atheists are less moral than theists is a common misconception.

That depends on what you mean by 'moral.' In common usage, it is a synonym for 'ethics,' but in older usage it had religious connotations. Using the older meaning, a 'moral atheist' is an oxymoron. The fact that many religious ethicists still use the word this way leads to some unfortunate misunderstandings.
Post reply on HN