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

191–200 of 232 posts

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#191

Post by eru »

devinj wrote: post #150
axod wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make it sound like he was murdered because he was gay. I don't think it was quite that clear cut. I'm quite a believer in "if he hadn't done it, someone else would have" personally. I don't mean to belittle anyones contribution, but the idea that there's only one genius who can come up with something seems very unlikely to me. Most inventions are 'discovered' by many people at around the same time.

Other people did do it, and even at nearly the exact same time. Turing just did it more convincingly. (See: Alonzo Church and the Lambda calculus).

And Turing helped a lot with the War effort, building hardware (i.e. stuff you can kick) as well as developing theories.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#192

Post by eru »

lena wrote: post #184
gaius wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not that women make less than men on average, they often make less than men when doing the exact same job, for the exact same hours. I am really suspicious of this, because it simply doesn't match my own experience. I've worked behind a bar, I've been a lifeguard, I've done a few jobs in hi-tech and equality is the norm. Here in the UK the Office of National Statistics ripped apart Harriet Harman's fig…

Well, it does matches my experience. When I had relatively simple jobs like working behind a bar, there was no inequality, but in IT there was. Sometimes it was disguised. Men who did the exact same work as women had a different title, so they earned more because technically they had a different role. Dutch research indicated that a big part of the 20% difference is because of the choices women make (though of course…

Perhaps you should open a company that exploits those arbitrage opportunities?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#193

Post by gdee »

joubert wrote: post #75
natrius wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the demand for adoption outstrips supply, and if (big if) a man and a woman parent substantially better than two people of the same gender, it might make sense to have a blanket preference for heterosexual couples when choosing parents. There could be something innate in each gender that contributes to a child's upbringing, and depending on the value of those traits, it could be responsible to maximize the number…

And what may that innate quality be? And what about gay children? Aren't straight parents the wrong setup for them?

Assuming non-homophobic heterosexual parents, why would they be the "wrong setup"?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#194

Post by eru »

caryme wrote: post #13
natrius wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the demand for adoption outstrips supply, and if (big if) a man and a woman parent substantially better than two people of the same gender, it might make sense to have a blanket preference for heterosexual couples when choosing parents. There could be something innate in each gender that contributes to a child's upbringing, and depending on the value of those traits, it could be responsible to maximize the number…

I realize this is an explanation for the argument against same-sex couple adoption, but in the same vein I'd like to point out that where this argument falls apart is in the legality of single parent adoption. In the US, it is legal in every state for single parents to adopt. However, in some states it is illegal for same-sex couples to adopt children. For the real kicker, in Florida (where I am from), homosexual peo…

How does the state determine your sexual preferences? Do they take a blood test?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#195

Post by sjs »

doug_m wrote: post #121
sjs wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think any amount of human suffering is really worth some perceived progress. Not only because the progress will likely come around eventually anyway if it's for the better, but if we're trying to better humankind we shouldn't start by harming even a single human.

Really? even Alexander Fleming before his accidental discovery of penicillin?

It's a fine line, but if the patients are willful participants then I guess that's a different story.

If they are not willful then I'm unmoved on my stance.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#196

Post by eru »

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?

Actually they are, e.g., in Germany. (If memory serves me right.)

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#197

Post by eru »

axod wrote: post #140
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #4

All in all, a great essay. But: >I’m conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Why on earth shouldn't a gay couple be allowed to adopt?

If you asked the population if they'd have been happy being brought up by gay parents, the vast majority would say "no".

Just ask people `if they'd have been happy being brought up by [insert any religion, or lack thereof] parents, the vast majority would say "no"'.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#198

Post by gdee »

frossie wrote: post #98
caryme wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know any gay men? This is beyond offensive to me. I'm a hacker, a Christian, and a gay man. I've been a babysitter and a church camp counselor (of children from fourth through twelfth grade). Before you talk about the "problem gay men seem to have with sexual abuse," we should talk. A man's value is not defined by his sexual orientation.

This is beyond offensive to me. I'm a hacker, a Christian, and a gay man. Dude, I'm a hacker-herding atheist straight female, and that was beyond offensive to me too, so I figure between you and me we have all the bases covered :-) First time I have hoped that somebody was trolling on HN though...

>> so I figure between you and me we have all the bases covered You both list four personal characteristics. On all four I resemble one of you too so I guess I don't expand the "bases" :)

I also find his points are somewhat offensive. I say somewhat because I have learned that being offended by someones opinions (as opposed to him lashing out on you personally) is not a good thing. They are just that, opinions, ideas. Maybe thought inducing or maybe boring. Offensiveness alone, I think, should only ever be used held the offender when offensiveness was the purpose.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#199

Post by gaius »

lena wrote: post #184
gaius wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not that women make less than men on average, they often make less than men when doing the exact same job, for the exact same hours. I am really suspicious of this, because it simply doesn't match my own experience. I've worked behind a bar, I've been a lifeguard, I've done a few jobs in hi-tech and equality is the norm. Here in the UK the Office of National Statistics ripped apart Harriet Harman's fig…

Well, it does matches my experience. When I had relatively simple jobs like working behind a bar, there was no inequality, but in IT there was. Sometimes it was disguised. Men who did the exact same work as women had a different title, so they earned more because technically they had a different role. Dutch research indicated that a big part of the 20% difference is because of the choices women make (though of course…

And I have never met a regular employee who honestly worked more than 50/hrs a week

The statistics include all the dirty, dangerous and manual jobs. The ones that are done predominantly by men and that campaigners forget about when they demand equality.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#200

Post by tome »

goatforce5 wrote: post #185
tome wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So what do we do with people who were conceived and subsequently born after drunken fumbles, or where a condom was used but failed?

My comment has nothing to do with unintentional conception.
Post reply on HN