Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Posthumous pardon for Alan Turing


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 101 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jul 2013 09:58:11 BDT
easytiger says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 12:47:28 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Your post was nonsense and added nothing of value. Bigotry is neither clever nor informative.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 12:24:10 BDT
Stu says:
easy and very simply put GH,now if anyone wants a simpler version they cannot get it can they

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 12:01:57 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 24 Jul 2013 10:12:29 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 09:49:09 BDT
easytiger says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 23 Jul 2013 09:35:51 BDT
pixie says:
I find it best not to judge the past by the present...it never works. That was then and this is now. The only thing we have to make sure of is that we learn from the past, move on and make the world a better place. Hopefully!

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 09:30:16 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Jul 2013 19:48:10 BDT
O.Binladen says:
As usual Jack you have nothing whatsoever of any value to add to the discourse.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 09:29:07 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Jul 2013 10:23:10 BDT
G. Heron says:
Tom M

"Are we then to draw the conclusion that if a person is good and useful in one behavior or skill, all his other behaviors should be accepted?"

Certainly not, being good at something does not excuse bad behavior in other areas. In the case of Turing his great mathematical abilities do not excuse him for, well actually I can't think of anything that Turing did that needed excusing, perhaps you can enlighten me, I would be devastated to find he used to cheat at cards.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 09:21:25 BDT
G. Heron says:
Tom M

A gay man is a man who is sexually attracted to other men and a gay woman is a woman who is sexually attracted to other women. I hope this clarifies the situation.

Posted on 23 Jul 2013 08:04:38 BDT
easytiger says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 07:39:40 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Tom would advocate precisely that if his religion demanded it.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 07:36:11 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Edward Green: Because we have for a number of years now found the wrong kind of association between condom-availability and levels of condom use.. You see the wrong kind of relationship with HIV prevalence. Instead of seeing this associated with lower HIV infection rates, it's actually associated with higher HIV infection rates. Part of that is because the people using condoms are the people who are having risky sex. It's just like there is more bed nets in use in countries with malaria than in countries without such high levels of malaria."
That's an interesting quote 'Tom', would you advocate the elimination or reduction in availability of mosquito nets as a solution to the malaria problem?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 07:23:57 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Loves to call me a bigot.. despite the obvious fluidity of people's sens of their 'sexuality'"
What are the chances of you turning gay 'Tom'. Would it surprise you if any of your friends turned gay? And do you try to convert any gay friends (if you have gay friends)?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 06:58:34 BDT
O.Binladen says:
So the study concluded there wasn't enough data to come to any conclusive finding. Hilarious waste of bandwidth. Since all the major health organisations recognise that being gay is not a condition can I suggest you pedal your homophobic wares elsewhere. Your church must have a website where this kind of idiotic bigotry is lapped up by the prejudiced and the ignorant.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 06:53:22 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Jul 2013 07:01:25 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Very entertaining, but there is a worldwide scientific consensus on the fact that being gay is not a condition. I am left with the inescapable conclusion that your stubborn adherence to the idea that a person's sexuality is "fluid" is a comment on your personal confusion over your own urges. .

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 06:48:48 BDT
O.Binladen says:
So you're ignoring my response to your post asking for evidence that homosexuality is not a condition, and you're ignoring the world wide scientific consensus and the world's leading health organisation, that state categorically that being gay is not a condition? We can assume then that your motivation for this is adherence to dogma from a bronze age superstition. So all your supercilious talk of philosophical giants is a front to superstition and bigotry.

Posted on 23 Jul 2013 06:23:30 BDT
Tom M says:
William Crawley: What's the evidence that you are appealing to that condom distribution has made things worse in Africa?

Edward Green: Because we have for a number of years now found the wrong kind of association between condom-availability and levels of condom use.. You see the wrong kind of relationship with HIV prevalence. Instead of seeing this associated with lower HIV infection rates, it's actually associated with higher HIV infection rates. Part of that is because the people using condoms are the people who are having risky sex. It's just like there is more bed nets in use in countries with malaria than in countries without such high levels of malaria.

Posted on 23 Jul 2013 06:21:25 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 23 Jul 2013 06:19:08 BDT
Tom M says:
The following post

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on 7 May 2013 06:08:26 BDT
Last edited by you on 7 May 2013 07:19:32 BDT
Tom M says:
Actually Bellatori,

It was no retreat.. do you honestly think any sane person could be attracted to atheism? Are you so whacked that you think the problem of evil.... as its floated around for some millenia, is a major problem for believing in the goodness of everything created, and which demands pure being as its necessary cause?

No. It's the twerp behavior. Yours.

I had to chase you around the room as you argued like a deranged monkey bigot.

I won't bother to recount your slimy record

Who NEEDS to talk to you Bellatori.

Still think that Harvard's Green who made news around the world, frightening bigots like you to death by pointing out that focusing on condoms was increasing the deaths, wasn't actually doing that?

I've seldom seen so many hours devoted to so much crap on an INTERNATIONAL NEW STORY.

This gives you a hint at how honest and interesting I think you are. Moron level stuff as the millions die and are orphaned. It's really creepy how the millions of dead and dying, get hardly a mention if they turn out to be more your doing than the pope's. Gee..what a surprise.
Edit your post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Actually Bellatori,

It was no retreat.. do you honestly think any sane person could be attracted to atheism? Are you so whacked that you think the problem of evil.... as its floated around for some millenia, is a major problem for believing in the goodness of everything created, and which demands pure being as its necessary cause?

No. It's the twerp behavior. Yours.

I had to chase you around the room as you argued like a deranged monkey bigot.

I won't bother to recount your slimy record

Who NEEDS to talk to you Bellatori.

Still think that Harvard's Green who made news around the world, frightening bigots like you to death by pointing out that focusing on condoms was increasing the deaths, wasn't actually doing that?

I've seldom seen so many hours devoted to so much crap on an INTERNATIONAL NEW STORY.

This gives you a hint at how honest and interesting I think you are. Moron level stuff as the millions die and are orphaned. It's really creepy how the millions of dead and dying, get hardly a mention if they turn out to be more your doing than the pope's. Gee..what a surprise. Guidelines
Edit this post | Permalink

Posted on 23 Jul 2013 06:17:46 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 23 Jul 2013 05:22:44 BDT
Tom M says:
Study Finds Host of Challenges for Kids of Homosexual Parents
By Dr. Keith Ablow

Published June 12, 2012

FoxNews.com

The "no differences" theory that children of gay parents-married or not-do not substantially differ from the children of married, heterosexual parents has now been called into question. Two studies published on June 10, in the esteemed journal, Social Science Research, come to conclusions that will cause a great deal of controversy, and should bring about further research. Here's a look at the findings:

1) A careful analysis of the research studies that led the American Psychological Association (in 2005) to assert that the children of gay and lesbian parents are in no way disadvantaged, compared to the children of heterosexual parents, has concluded those studies were inadequate. According to Dr. Loren Marks, Associate Professor at Louisiana State University, who authored the analysis: "The available data, which are drawn from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim...such a statement would not be grounded in science."

2) The New Family Structures Study (NESS), published by Dr. Mark Regnerus, Associate Professor at the University of Texas, compared thousands of young adults (ages 18-39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements.

Those who knew that their mothers had had a lesbian relationship fared significantly worse on measures of educational attainment and household income, reported more depression, used marijuana more, more often reported forced sexual encounters, felt less close to their biological mother, felt less safe and secure in their family of origin, had more often pled guilty to a minor criminal offense and were more likely to be on public assistance.

Those who knew their fathers had had a gay relationship were more likely to have been arrested, to have thought recently about suicide, to feel depressed, to report sexually transmitted diseases and to have experienced forced sex.

Twenty-three percent of young adults who knew their mother to have had a gay relationship reported being forced to have sexual contact with a parent or adult caregiver, while only 2 percent of intact families with a mother and father reported such contact. For female young adults, that figure leapt to 31 percent (while only 3 percent of young women from intact heterosexual families reported this).

In saying that the children of parents who were known to have engaged in homosexual relationships reported these increased rates of suffering, it is important to note that the rates were higher for these children (now young adults) than for children in intact families with two biological parents, children whose parents divorced late in life, children who were raised with a step-parent in the home, children raised by a single parent and children adopted by strangers.

This data-and it is data-does not indicate why these differences were found. And neither paper suggests how to minimize the hurdles that children of gay parents seem to face during adulthood. But the data should not be dismissed. It was generated, after all, by academic leaders at major universities and published by an esteemed journal with no political agenda and an advisory board with representatives from about three dozen universities.

No doubt those with an investment in whether gay marriage is legalized will frame these findings as evidence that we should not be encouraging such unions. Perhaps proponents of gay marriage will argue that more need be done to mainstream such unions, and homosexuality itself, in order to reduce any stigma suffered by children born to parents who have had gay relationships. After all, this study did not specifically address (as a separate group) the children born to gay couples who were married.

What we should avoid at all costs is silencing such research and such discussion because it is seen by some as politically incorrect. Where optimizing the well-being of children is involved, no stone should be left unturned.

It would be important to know, for example, whether children who are born to gay parents seem to run into less (or more) trouble if their parents are married.

It would seem to be important to know whether children of gay parents run into less trouble if they were the products of artificial insemination vs. the product of a prior heterosexual relationship. Where the fallout of certain childrearing circumstances seems to be more depression, suicide, lawlessness, drug use, sexually transmitted disease and economic hardship, we ought not scare off the scientific community from doing what it does-research and reporting of the facts.

In this regard, I should note something important: I hesitated to write about this topic in an opinion piece. I didn't hesitate because I think the topic frivolous. I didn't hesitate because I think of Social Science Research as a meaningless journal (because it is anything but that). I didn't hesitate because funding for the NESS comes partly from conservative groups (because data are data, unless they can be refuted on objective grounds, and this study is painstaking, in many regards). I hesitated because I worried about getting more of the threats and hate mail (by post and e-mail) I receive whenever I even mention the seemingly unspeakable issue of how social forces related to sexual orientation and gender identity might impact well being in children.

Yet, yielding to that worry would mean that being bullied way back when I was a school kid might have left me timid, and I just can't abide that.

When I see a path of enquiry that might yield some bit of truth, I want to try to be the person who takes it, no matter how treacherous. And, so, it is with this commentary, now in your good hands, to take or leave, to debate, to discuss-as Tennyson wrote, "to strive, to seek, to find..."

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/12/study-finds-host-challenges-for-kids-gay-parents/?intcmp=features#ixzz1xadNd0OQ

Posted on 23 Jul 2013 04:52:15 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Jul 2013 04:53:36 BDT
Tom M says:
Heritability quotients have other limitations Estimates are not constant numbers but can change over time and in different populations. Many large samples are needed to obtain valid heritability estimates. This is seldom done. Heritability is a population parameter like the mean. The average height of a population
tells you nothing about the tallness or shortness of any particular individual! Likewise a heritability quotient tells you nothing about why a particular person is gay. A heritability quotient cannot be used to predict who may become gay or lesbian.

Another limitation of these studies is the authorship. Most of this research has been done by gays that have a vested interest in the outcome. The fourth caveat is the use of biased samples. Volunteers from gay groups may only participate if they have a gay brother or sister. Even gay advocates such as J. Michael Bailey (in Bailey & Dawood, 1998) admit: "If, for example, a gay twin who sees an advertisement for a [twin] study may be less likely to call if his twin is heterosexual, this would cause concordance-dependent
bias" (p. 10).
The last limitation is the fact that "correlation does not indicate causation." Heritability estimates are correlations regardless of what statistical test is used, be that an ANOVA or a path analysis. Correlations cannot rule out the third variables problem: that there is something else, not observed and measured, that is causing the correlation.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 04:45:49 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 22 Jul 2013 22:20:25 BDT
Stu says:
everybody in the whole world owes alan turing if he were alive today one giant hug from each of us for his work at bletchley,with the rest of his workmates,it is one giant shame that he was treated the way he was though,instead of accepting things like they do today,disgusting RIP

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jul 2013 21:32:36 BDT
O.Binladen says:
Everyone owes him an enormous debt of gratitude for his work at Bletchley, that helped defeat the Nazis.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  15
Total posts:  101
Initial post:  20 Jul 2013
Latest post:  24 Jul 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions