| 00:00.10 | Tene | levi: how does it feel about you? |
| 00:01.37 | levi | Tene: It's not intelligent enough to have feelings about me. |
| 00:25.57 | *** join/#utah wps (n=wps@208.53.47.251) |
| 01:06.56 | Sargun_Screen | heya |
| 01:14.06 | *** join/#utah |catalyst| (n=kvirc@valentinesd.fttp.xmission.com) |
| 01:34.40 | *** part/#utah |catalyst| (n=kvirc@valentinesd.fttp.xmission.com) |
| 01:35.21 | *** join/#utah xvalentinex (n=kvirc@valentinesd.fttp.xmission.com) |
| 01:55.26 | *** join/#utah brasto (n=brasto@slcl007.digis.net) |
| 02:15.48 | *** join/#utah bretticus (n=brett@host-72-174-168-41.cdc-ut.client.bresnan.net) |
| 02:16.27 | *** join/#utah Claud-SLC (n=hot@166-70-187-9.ip.xmission.com) |
| 02:21.18 | Heartsbane | ~onjoin -Claud-SLC |
| 02:21.18 | ibot | ok, Heartsbane |
| 02:54.33 | *** join/#utah elg (n=fugalh@216.31.27.110) |
| 02:54.33 | *** mode/#utah [+v elg] by ChanServ |
| 03:21.58 | *** join/#utah jasonf_ (n=Jason@jasonfarnsworth.fttp.xmission.com) |
| 03:22.07 | *** part/#utah jasonf_ (n=Jason@jasonfarnsworth.fttp.xmission.com) |
| 03:24.08 | *** join/#utah elg (n=fugalh@216.31.27.110) |
| 03:24.08 | *** mode/#utah [+v elg] by ChanServ |
| 04:05.15 | *** part/#utah bonez46 (n=scott@75.145.57.253) |
| 04:15.33 | *** join/#utah Jacolyte (n=Jacolyte@unaffiliated/jacolyte) |
| 04:16.44 | Sargun_Screen | Jacolyte: What are you doing here? |
| 04:17.03 | Jacolyte | Uh, I live in utah |
| 04:17.19 | Jacolyte | and this channel is relevant to my interests |
| 04:17.34 | Sargun_Screen | How so? |
| 04:17.37 | Jacolyte | Why are you here? |
| 04:17.59 | Jacolyte | Hm? |
| 04:18.04 | Jacolyte | Why aren't you in #california |
| 04:18.18 | Sargun_Screen | Because its fun to see how stupid fozzmoo can be. |
| 04:19.29 | Sargun_Screen | Can't beat that logic |
| 04:19.34 | Jacolyte | Nope, rock solid. |
| 04:19.37 | Sargun_Screen | ~lart Jacolyte |
| 04:19.37 | ibot | puts Jacolyte through a wood chipper |
| 04:21.57 | *** join/#utah elg (n=fugalh@216.31.27.110) |
| 04:21.57 | *** mode/#utah [+v elg] by ChanServ |
| 04:23.53 | Sargun_Screen | Jacolyte: I don't think you understand the full extent of the credit crunch. |
| 04:25.21 | Jacolyte | Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, one of the companies who will be receiving bailout money, does? |
| 04:26.36 | Sargun_Screen | Who knows? |
| 04:26.58 | Jacolyte | Nobody understands the "full extent", unless they have a time machine |
| 04:27.10 | *** join/#utah brasto (n=brasto@slcl007.digis.net) |
| 04:28.59 | Jacolyte | We do have economists though, they seemed to have predicted this mess quite accurately |
| 04:40.51 | *** join/#utah gabegundy (n=gabe@64.90.197.28) |
| 04:50.43 | levi | Whee, Sargun calling people stupid. :P |
| 04:51.33 | Tene | I fixed a nasty little bug in the depths of parrot's register allocator tonight. |
| 04:51.35 | Tene | That was fun. |
| 04:51.53 | eightyeight | do tell |
| 04:53.35 | levi | Yeah, that does sound like an interesting story. |
| 04:54.18 | Tene | Oh, okay. |
| 04:54.43 | Tene | So I was adding support for handling next/redo/last exceptions to the code generator for for loops. |
| 04:55.29 | Tene | I screwed it up a bit so that the code to add the error handler was after a conditional jump, but popping the error handler happened after the target of that jump. |
| 04:56.12 | Tene | The PIR compiler just hung when trying to process it, instead of compiling. |
| 04:56.36 | Tene | I used valgrind's callgrind tool to find where it was spending it's time. |
| 04:57.13 | Tene | Found out it was in compute_dominance_frontiers which is called from the register allocator. |
| 04:57.18 | Tene | The comment there says: |
| 04:57.25 | Tene | Algorithm to find dominance frontiers described in paper "A Simple, Fast |
| 04:57.25 | Tene | Dominance Algorithm", Cooper et al. (2001) |
| 04:57.54 | Tene | So I look up that paper, read it, and go to sleep. |
| 04:58.57 | Tene | I chat with chromatic either today or yesterday, and he tells me that in an inner loop some value is oscillating between "8" and "9", and I should find a way to dump out the blocks that the algorithm is iterating over. |
| 05:00.03 | Tene | So I find some debug functions to dump them out, I see why it's bouncing, and I add a check to return from the inner loop if we've already added the current block to the current node's list of dominance frontiers. |
| 05:00.09 | Tene | And now everything works. |
| 05:00.22 | eightyeight | this is in C? |
| 05:00.25 | Tene | Yeah. |
| 05:00.51 | Tene | If you're really interested, I'll write a blog post with snippets of code and debug output and such. |
| 05:01.07 | levi | That would be cool. |
| 05:01.43 | levi | I'm working on learning Factor. |
| 05:02.09 | eightyeight | yeah. put up the post. i'd be interested |
| 05:02.19 | Tene | I think I'll wait on confirmation that this fix is valid before I post it, but I'll start writing it now. |
| 05:03.32 | eightyeight | gabegundy: is it possible to get thi tag cloud off of openclue.org? |
| 05:03.38 | eightyeight | s/thi/the/ |
| 05:04.02 | gabegundy | the whole thing is being re-done. |
| 05:04.23 | eightyeight | eta? |
| 05:04.41 | gabegundy | It's been very badly neglected. |
| 05:05.22 | gabegundy | I've been working like a mad man. When I get a break, I spend time on it. No real solid eta. |
| 05:06.04 | gabegundy | Take tonight - sitting in a data center freezing my fingers off while the world sleeps. :( |
| 05:06.13 | eightyeight | heh |
| 05:06.48 | eightyeight | are you going to stick with feedjack? |
| 05:07.02 | gabegundy | No - django yes. |
| 05:07.21 | eightyeight | custom built? |
| 05:07.36 | *** join/#utah JuicyJuice (n=brian@park-6-59.hotspot.utah.edu) |
| 05:07.57 | gabegundy | Yep. Will use the same feed puller with a few mods. |
| 05:09.10 | gabegundy | you know, I should stop reading it with a feed reader. I don't feel the pain or see the ugliness. :) |
| 05:09.55 | eightyeight | heh |
| 05:12.11 | Tene | http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w0pYYVNavoE/SOGtGlvkSWI/AAAAAAAAAj0/-63us6sa-F4/s1600-h/dsc04203.jpg -- cat model printed with a reprap |
| 05:12.15 | eightyeight | i always use a feed reader, but the times i visit the site in a browser, my fingers bleed due to scrolling through the tag cloud |
| 05:17.02 | gabegundy | i hear ya |
| 05:22.14 | eightyeight | http://techdirt.com/articles/20081001/0217292422.shtml |
| 05:22.15 | brac | [Techdirt: Is The Original Spyware Company Finally Dead?] |
| 05:28.45 | Tene | Can someone confirm that this url is valid without being logged in: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Attachment/477734/222390/loop_control_next.patch.txt ? |
| 05:30.44 | eightyeight | Tene: it's asking to login |
| 05:30.56 | Tene | Bah, I need to find the public url, then. |
| 05:30.59 | Tene | 'kay, thanks. |
| 05:31.15 | eightyeight | np |
| 05:53.34 | Sargun_Screen | lakshmi: .... |
| 05:55.01 | lakshmi | what do YOU want. |
| 05:55.05 | lakshmi | Sargun_Screen |
| 05:57.31 | lakshmi | fine don't respond |
| 05:57.37 | levi | Grr, I misunderstood my sprinkler controller. Had to go out and shut it off, and now I've got wet legs. |
| 05:57.47 | lakshmi | so dry them. |
| 05:58.14 | high_roller | I wish my house had a sprinkler system |
| 05:58.40 | JuicyJuice | I wish I had a yard so I wish I could have a sprinkler system |
| 06:00.10 | high_roller | well as my wife's father sayz you can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up faster |
| 06:01.44 | JuicyJuice | At least I'm not wishing the economy is going to be okay |
| 06:02.38 | Jacolyte | high_roller: I'd rather have nothing than a hand full of shit |
| 06:21.00 | Tene | sleeps. |
| 06:26.32 | Sargun_Screen | Hahah |
| 06:26.42 | Sargun_Screen | I wish my house had a nuclear reactor |
| 06:27.19 | JuicyJuice | what kind? |
| 06:28.04 | JuicyJuice | light water, heavy water, fusion? |
| 06:28.08 | JuicyJuice | be more specific |
| 06:28.13 | levi | I want a Mr. Fusion. |
| 06:28.48 | JuicyJuice | it's in france |
| 06:28.49 | JuicyJuice | http://www.iter.org/ |
| 06:29.40 | JuicyJuice | too bad the US is gonna piss off all the countries and jeapordize involvement in ITER by nearly eliminating funding for it |
| 06:30.18 | JuicyJuice | the one true "alternative energy" source and we don't want to pay for it |
| 06:31.06 | levi | That's not a Mr. Fusion. |
| 06:36.50 | levi | It's a long-term research project. Hopefully the current political climate will lead to giving it more support. |
| 06:37.05 | levi | Mr. Fusion, on the other hand, turns garbage into abundant energy! |
| 06:37.46 | levi | All you need is a DeLorean, a flux capacitor, and some plutonium to get one. |
| 06:42.38 | levi | Hmm, ITER isn't scheduled for first plasma until 2016. |
| 06:42.49 | levi | Maybe my kids will see fusion power. :) |
| 06:59.57 | Jacolyte | America's too busy making the disproportionately rich richer... we don't have time for clean energy solutions! |
| 07:05.46 | Sargun_Screen | Jacolyte: We should use Utah as our nuclear dump. |
| 07:05.52 | Sargun_Screen | or Idaho. |
| 07:06.00 | Jacolyte | Idaho sounds better |
| 07:08.55 | Sargun_Screen | What about we use Utah for nuclear testing |
| 07:10.49 | Jacolyte | Let's use Sargun for nuclear testing |
| 07:11.55 | lakshmi | Jacolyte i agree you should |
| 07:12.38 | Jacolyte | I'm sure we could extract some nuclear energy from him |
| 07:23.30 | *** join/#utah Guest31300 (n=Jacolyte@71-35-204-73.slkc.qwest.net) |
| 07:23.47 | Guest31300 | wahhrghgllhleglhlge |
| 07:23.51 | Guest31300 | Power went out |
| 08:05.45 | Sargun_Screen | o.O |
| 08:14.22 | *** join/#utah Sargun (n=Sargun@atarack/staff/sargun) |
| 08:23.59 | *** join/#utah memilyrae (n=memilyra@166-70-62-135.ip.xmission.com) |
| 08:49.25 | JuicyJuice | u |
| 11:02.56 | *** join/#utah elg (n=fugalh@216.31.27.110) |
| 11:02.56 | *** mode/#utah [+v elg] by ChanServ |
| 11:26.31 | *** join/#utah linuxalien (n=linuxali@oalug/member/linuxalien) |
| 11:29.09 | linuxalien | Hello geeksters |
| 11:41.35 | *** join/#utah linuxalien (n=linuxali@oalug/member/linuxalien) |
| 13:17.02 | *** join/#utah emcnabb (n=emcnabb@nat/redhat/x-3f3cc742554af943) |
| 13:17.02 | *** mode/#utah [+v emcnabb] by ChanServ |
| 13:21.54 | *** join/#utah utahcon (n=barreta@bromine.sosstaffing.com) |
| 13:52.51 | *** join/#utah wps (n=wps@64.0.193.69) |
| 13:56.03 | *** join/#utah thaddeusq (n=thaddeus@216.49.181.128) |
| 14:00.30 | *** join/#utah gdusbabek (n=gdusbabe@70.102.114.38) |
| 14:16.23 | *** join/#utah elg (n=fugalh@216.31.27.110) |
| 14:16.23 | *** mode/#utah [+v elg] by ChanServ |
| 14:20.31 | *** join/#utah Jayce^ (n=jayce@office.bluehost.com) |
| 14:20.31 | *** mode/#utah [+o Jayce^] by ChanServ |
| 14:24.15 | fozzmoo | is at the airport. |
| 14:28.13 | *** join/#utah tuple (n=fugalh@dhcp25.cs.nmsu.edu) |
| 14:28.13 | *** mode/#utah [+v tuple] by ChanServ |
| 14:43.03 | *** join/#utah tristanbob (n=tristanb@ubuntu/member/tristanbob) |
| 15:05.33 | *** join/#utah fungus (n=olsonl@bromine.sosstaffing.com) |
| 15:13.01 | goozbach | fozzmoo: good luck with your test |
| 15:13.07 | goozbach | we're all counting on you! |
| 15:16.35 | tuple | ~flunk fozzmoo |
| 15:16.36 | ibot | ACTION shoves a dunce cap on fozzmoo then encourages everyone to point and laugh |
| 15:22.44 | levi | Good morning. |
| 15:29.51 | Tene | HI LEVI |
| 15:35.31 | *** join/#utah neybar (n=jalance@thelances.net) |
| 15:43.08 | eightyeight | fozzmoo: rhce exam? where at? |
| 15:53.34 | goozbach | eightyeight: phx I think |
| 16:14.54 | hjp_gone_home | I need a mental health day. |
| 16:14.58 | hjp_gone_home | s/day/week/ |
| 16:26.28 | Tene | eightyeight: phoenix |
| 16:26.43 | Tene | eightyeight: RH wouldn't let him take just the exam at GL. |
| 16:28.11 | tvc123 | that seems odd ... just because he knew too many people there? |
| 16:31.02 | *** join/#utah brasto (n=brasto@slcl007.digis.net) |
| 16:50.49 | eightyeight | Tene: yeah. saw that post about the 300. kinda sucks, but oh well i guess |
| 16:58.20 | *** join/#utah brasto (n=brasto@slcl007.digis.net) |
| 16:59.02 | unum | http://utregion5.org/vote/ |
| 16:59.25 | unum | it doesn't have any ballot issues,judges,school boards, or local offices |
| 17:02.14 | Sargun_Screen | I suggest you leave it completely open |
| 17:02.32 | Sargun_Screen | aw, hell, just plug it into the public internet |
| 17:12.41 | Tene | What post about the 300? |
| 17:15.55 | elg | http://www.superdellforgovernor.com/blog.asp |
| 17:15.57 | brac | [Dell Schanze SUPERDELL for Utah Governor] |
| 17:16.04 | elg | i thought he was nuts, now I know he is |
| 17:16.23 | elg | is he the official libertarian candidate? |
| 17:16.50 | unum | elg: yep |
| 17:17.04 | elg | oh my. they couldn't find anyone better in the whole state? |
| 17:17.13 | unum | I had a friend who really wishes she would have gone to the trouble to become a delegate |
| 17:17.34 | unum | they almost went with out a candidate, dell won by one vote |
| 17:17.53 | elg | one vote total, or it was a close race? |
| 17:18.39 | Sargun_Screen | superdell? |
| 17:18.59 | *** join/#utah vontrapp (n=vontrapp@vader.cs.byu.edu) |
| 17:18.59 | ibot | steals vontrapp's parking sticker |
| 17:29.31 | elg | sargun_screen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Schanze |
| 17:30.56 | unum | elg: well it was close but I think there were only about 20 votes |
| 17:31.55 | elg | oddly enough I can't find any TAC commercials with superdell in them on youtube |
| 17:34.50 | vontrapp | so, if there was a tie, there's just no candidate? |
| 17:36.44 | unum | vontrapp: that's a good question. I'm not sure it would depend on the parties rules, and I'm not part of that party |
| 17:36.59 | unum | in other parties it would force a primary |
| 17:37.03 | Sargun_Screen | wow, and I thought california was nuts... |
| 17:37.14 | unum | but in this case he was running against no one. |
| 17:37.38 | *** join/#utah kent1 (n=kboogert@nat/novell/x-bd6c47fdb11d1fa8) |
| 17:37.46 | vontrapp | my theory is all the (real) libertarians were gone to the rep party to vote for paul |
| 17:38.12 | mrpull | wait... the Libertarians are supporting Schanze? |
| 17:38.15 | vontrapp | and dell got some friends to join libertarian to vote for him |
| 17:38.47 | vontrapp | that depends on your definition of Libertarians and your definition of 'support' |
| 17:39.09 | vontrapp | but yes, he's the official candidate |
| 17:39.11 | mrpull | he is their official candidate? fantastic. |
| 17:39.43 | vontrapp | unum: i thought he won by one vote? |
| 17:42.03 | vontrapp | so there was one and only one vote for schanze? |
| 17:43.04 | levi | He said there were about 20 votes, so I assume Schanze got more than 1. |
| 17:43.13 | *** join/#utah lakshmi (n=lakshmi@sjs-130-65-240-251.sjsu.edu) |
| 17:43.17 | levi | But his margin of victory was a single vote. |
| 17:43.25 | vontrapp | but he said there was no other candidate |
| 17:43.35 | vontrapp | "running agains no one." |
| 17:43.42 | levi | Oh. |
| 17:43.44 | unum | mrpull: there was nothing to stop you from voting in both |
| 17:43.58 | unum | vontrapp: he was running against no one |
| 17:44.09 | unum | the libertarian party was choosing to run him or no one |
| 17:44.13 | unum | and he won by one vote |
| 17:44.17 | vontrapp | ah, i see |
| 17:44.23 | vontrapp | that makes sense then |
| 17:44.31 | vontrapp | well, not that he won, maybe |
| 17:45.02 | unum | oddly enough no one else filed for their nomination |
| 17:45.16 | unum | I wish he would have stayed on as the republican nominee for county mayer |
| 17:45.19 | unum | mayor |
| 17:47.04 | vontrapp | unum: is that utregion5.org unique to region 5? or can you get it for other places? |
| 17:55.49 | eightyeight | Tene: no more 302-only with a 300 class |
| 17:56.15 | *** join/#utah utahbyfive (n=kboogert@nat/novell/x-a94da5d6a7a0d0b2) |
| 18:04.49 | eightyeight | i would love to see dell schanze win. he'd last maybe a quarter, then leave out of his own humiliation |
| 18:05.09 | eightyeight | then maybe that would be the last of him |
| 18:06.17 | *** join/#utah elg (n=fugalh@dhcp25.cs.nmsu.edu) |
| 18:06.17 | *** mode/#utah [+v elg] by ChanServ |
| 18:08.59 | unum | vontrapp: utregion5.org is a site I run for my own political purposes. that ballot is a mock ballot I made up that cover races for one area I'm responsible for |
| 18:10.24 | levi | eightyeight: I think you underestimate the power of SUPERDELL's self-delusion. |
| 18:10.36 | unum | I agree |
| 18:10.48 | unum | i wish he was in the debates, so people could see how crazy the extreme right is |
| 18:12.24 | levi | Schanze as governor would be absolutely terrible for the reputation of Utah. Who would take Utah seriously? |
| 18:12.38 | eightyeight | levi: probably |
| 18:12.43 | levi | Of course, there's no danger of him actually being elected. |
| 18:12.46 | jsmith | levi: You're making the assumption that people already take Utah seriously |
| 18:12.50 | jsmith | ducks and hides |
| 18:13.43 | eightyeight | unum: putting him under the spotlight, such as debates, would probably show the utah population how nuts he really is |
| 18:13.44 | levi | jsmith: Well, we're already the butt of many jokes, but there's a fair amount of high-tech stuff going on here. We'd never attract any more with the spectre of Dell Schanze hanging over. |
| 18:14.03 | levi | I think the population of Utah already has a pretty good idea how nuts he is. |
| 18:14.11 | levi | He doesn't exactly shy away from the spotlight. |
| 18:14.12 | jsmith | tends to agree with levi |
| 18:14.49 | eightyeight | nuts, or hyeractive/extremely etroverted. i want to see him get laughed off the stage with his political viewpoints |
| 18:14.58 | unum | there are those in utah who agree with him |
| 18:15.34 | levi | unum: Yes, but not enough to elect him Governor by a long shot. |
| 18:15.44 | jsmith | unum: There are those outside of utah who agree with him, too... in fact, for every crazy person, there's a pretty good chance someone out there agrees with them |
| 18:15.55 | unum | jsmith: true |
| 18:16.21 | unum | though I bet you'll find a higher percentage in utah then say washington |
| 18:16.31 | unum | but texas and montanna might be higher |
| 18:16.35 | levi | So why's Schanze running as a Libertarian instead of under the Constitution party? |
| 18:17.55 | levi | The Constitution party seems to be Libertarianism through a warped Biblical lens. |
| 18:18.06 | eightyeight | heh. he ran for mayor of slc as republican, and now governor as libertarian |
| 18:18.33 | eightyeight | doing anything he can to get on the ticket. thought republican would be a shoe-in, i'm taking it |
| 18:19.04 | unum | levi: that was my impression as well, and it does seem that he would be a better fit there |
| 18:19.51 | *** join/#utah tiwula (n=lane@75.148.99.197) |
| 18:20.20 | levi | libertarians, as a whole, seem to be not so rabidly anti-homosexual. |
| 18:20.54 | unum | true libertarians don't think the government should be involved in marriage |
| 18:21.06 | levi | Right. |
| 18:21.17 | levi | My understanding is that they're split on the abortion issue, though. |
| 18:21.28 | fozzmoo | is in Phoenix |
| 18:21.46 | unum | ya because abortion doesn't involve to consenting adults |
| 18:21.48 | jsmith | fozzmoo: I just got back from Phoenix on Monday... and was there for like ten days |
| 18:22.02 | unum | it involves either one adult, or an adult and a child depending on how you view things |
| 18:22.07 | levi | Right. |
| 18:22.17 | levi | Dell' |
| 18:22.21 | vontrapp | unum: that's one place i diverge from libertarians, i think the government should be involved in marriage |
| 18:22.38 | levi | Dell's platform seems more like "We hate gays and abortionists!" |
| 18:22.47 | unum | vontrapp: then it sounds like the constitution party would be a better fit for you and Dell :) |
| 18:23.05 | fozzmoo | unum: I would agree with that. |
| 18:23.25 | unum | or maybe a better socialist since you seem to think the goverment should run people's lives for them ;) |
| 18:23.27 | vontrapp | "and Dell"?? |
| 18:23.32 | fozzmoo | The Constitution Party is a really good party for people who have libertarian ideals mixed with appreciation for religious heritage. |
| 18:23.33 | JoshH | vontrapp, why? |
| 18:23.52 | vontrapp | i'm not homophobic, or extremely anti gay, i'm just pro-marriage |
| 18:23.59 | levi | I haven't done an in-depth look at the Constitution party to see what their underlying philosophy is like. |
| 18:24.12 | fozzmoo | It's very Skousen. |
| 18:24.26 | levi | Well, I don't think homophobia is part of the Constitution party platform. |
| 18:24.36 | unum | vontrapp: I don't see why you thinking the government regulating marriage makes it stronger |
| 18:24.54 | fozzmoo | levi: There is a difference between homophobia and not wanting same-sex marriage. |
| 18:25.00 | vontrapp | i don't see why others think that 'anything goes' doesn't make it weaker |
| 18:25.03 | JoshH | what's the difference? |
| 18:25.07 | fozzmoo | I have no problem with people being gay. |
| 18:25.15 | vontrapp | fozzmoo: ditto |
| 18:25.27 | fozzmoo | I do have a problem with people calling a civil union between two people of the same sex "marriage" |
| 18:25.31 | levi | fozzmoo: Right, but I think Dell Schanze is probably a homophobe, or at least a homosexual hater. |
| 18:25.31 | JoshH | why? |
| 18:25.32 | fozzmoo | Call it a civil union. Call it a partnership. |
| 18:25.36 | fozzmoo | Just don't call it marriage. |
| 18:25.40 | vontrapp | levi: no argument there |
| 18:25.42 | unum | vontrapp: it all depends on what you mean by "weaker" |
| 18:25.44 | JoshH | why does the name matter, if the benefits rare equal? |
| 18:25.54 | fozzmoo | levi: Dell Schanze is nuts. |
| 18:25.59 | vontrapp | unum: lose all benefit to society |
| 18:26.05 | fozzmoo | He needs to be institutionalized. |
| 18:26.16 | levi | fozzmoo: No question there, the point is that he doesn't really seem to be a great libertarian. |
| 18:26.22 | vontrapp | if marriage is 'anything goes' then marriage becomes meaningless |
| 18:26.30 | vontrapp | might as well not have it at all at that point |
| 18:26.39 | unum | vontrapp: you mean allowing gay marriages will mean that society will not "benefit" from marriages any more? |
| 18:26.41 | JoshH | marriage means different things to different people |
| 18:26.48 | JoshH | and nobody wants to make it anythign goes |
| 18:26.51 | vontrapp | unum: exactly |
| 18:26.53 | levi | It doesn't become meaningless, but it does then mean something else. |
| 18:27.07 | fozzmoo | "I want to marry my dog." |
| 18:27.11 | fozzmoo | "I want to marry my car." |
| 18:27.16 | vontrapp | unum: well, it does depend on what benefits you're talking about |
| 18:27.16 | unum | I don't see why my marriage has to be meaningless just because someone elses is |
| 18:27.17 | fozzmoo | "You can't deny me that RIGHT." |
| 18:27.27 | vontrapp | if you're talking about individual benefits, sure, it still has benefits |
| 18:27.28 | JoshH | sure we can |
| 18:27.39 | vontrapp | if you're talking about societal benefit, i think there's nothing left |
| 18:28.00 | unum | marriage is a legal contract. pets and inanimate objects can not enter a legal contract |
| 18:28.01 | JoshH | society would benefit more if you think about it logically |
| 18:28.24 | JoshH | if you think a married couple somehow helps society more than a couple that just lives together |
| 18:28.32 | vontrapp | unum: well, if you define marriage away to it's bare legalities, then you can argue a lot that way |
| 18:28.58 | unum | vontrapp: talking in a government sense I don't know why I should define it more than it's legalities |
| 18:29.00 | vontrapp | but marriage is sooo much more than a mere contract, a mere agreement between people, it's fundemental to family, and that's where it falls apart with gay marriage |
| 18:29.16 | JoshH | in what way would gay marriage reduce the benefits marriage has for society? |
| 18:29.23 | unum | vontrapp: so if I can't have kids I shouldn't be able to get married? |
| 18:29.28 | vontrapp | unum: if you're only worried about the legalities, then make a civil union that has all the same legalities |
| 18:29.31 | JoshH | i don't see how |
| 18:29.35 | vontrapp | but marriage MEANS something |
| 18:29.42 | fozzmoo | unum: If you can't have kids, we should celebrate! ;-) |
| 18:29.59 | unum | vontrapp: personally I think states should only recognize civil unions and let churches use marriage how ever they want |
| 18:30.02 | unum | it's just a word. |
| 18:30.14 | vontrapp | unum! nothing about being able to ahve kids! i said nothing about that |
| 18:30.46 | unum | you said a gay couple can't be a family, why not? |
| 18:30.47 | vontrapp | unum: i wouldn't be completely opposed to that approach |
| 18:31.13 | JoshH | how has gay marriage caused society to suffer in sweden? |
| 18:31.20 | vontrapp | as long as marriage remains marriage and parents can teach their kids about the societal ideals of mother and father, married with children |
| 18:31.25 | levi | BTW, as a data point in the conversation, the official LDS position on gay marriage is that homosexuals should not be granted 'marriage' or a materially equivalent civil union, but they are not necessarily opposed to a civil union that is some sufficiently different subset of marriage rights. |
| 18:31.29 | vontrapp | without being sued into oblivion |
| 18:32.05 | JoshH | i can only think of one negative result of allowign gay marriage, and that is that religious members of society would be offended or grossed out or whatever |
| 18:32.06 | vontrapp | unum: a gay couple can't be 'family' because children deserve father and mother |
| 18:32.17 | JoshH | which doesn't justify banning it |
| 18:32.19 | vontrapp | you might have rights, but so do children |
| 18:32.50 | JoshH | not all gay couples want children |
| 18:33.17 | vontrapp | JoshH: how has gay marriage caused society to suffer in soddom and gommorah? oh yeah, they were destroyed |
| 18:33.18 | unum | vontrapp: so we should take children away from widows and give them to two parent families? |
| 18:33.24 | vontrapp | unum: of course not |
| 18:33.24 | JoshH | i do know a guy raised by 2 moms pretty well, and he actually turned out great. cornell graduate, laywer, nice guy, etc |
| 18:33.29 | JoshH | vontrapp: please |
| 18:33.33 | vontrapp | but we shouldn't _give_ children to gays |
| 18:33.34 | unum | but they don't have two parents |
| 18:33.36 | JoshH | give me a real world example |
| 18:33.44 | unum | vontrapp: why not? |
| 18:33.47 | vontrapp | that was real, but whatever |
| 18:33.53 | vontrapp | unum: because they have rights |
| 18:34.11 | unum | and how are those right harmed by being raised by a gay couple? |
| 18:34.16 | vontrapp | the widow already had the child, the child is already strongly attached to the mother |
| 18:34.18 | JoshH | vontrapp: how has it hurt marriage in any scandinavian countries in modern times? leave religion out of it please |
| 18:34.27 | vontrapp | but in the case of gays, there's no prior attachment |
| 18:34.50 | JoshH | name just one way in which gays being allowed to enter the legal contract of marriage would cause harm to our society |
| 18:34.51 | fozzmoo | Can't leave religion out of it. This is America. Religion is a fundamental part of our country's history. |
| 18:34.56 | levi | JoshH: Religion and cultural norms can't be left out, because they're the basis of the argument. |
| 18:34.57 | vontrapp | and to give a child to a gay couple is to consciously deny them of a father and mother |
| 18:35.13 | levi | JoshH: That's what social conservatism is about. |
| 18:35.49 | vontrapp | hmmm... /me just noticed this keyboard has a pretty fat spacebar |
| 18:36.10 | unum | vontrapp: you still have explained the difference between a couple that can't have kids and a gay couple where both choose not to adopt |
| 18:36.14 | JoshH | i understand the social conservatives can't leave their religion out of it. but they say it would actually harm society, i'm asking for a real example. sodom and gomorrah doesn't count. |
| 18:36.21 | unum | should the government not recognize either contract? |
| 18:36.35 | vontrapp | because a straight couple can adopt and give the child a 'mother and father' |
| 18:36.41 | levi | JoshH: To social conservatives, shifting the cultural norms *is* a harm to society. |
| 18:37.02 | unum | vontrapp: but if they don't intend to adopt? |
| 18:37.13 | vontrapp | unum: you're splitting hairs |
| 18:37.31 | vontrapp | if you start legislating on _intentions_ your an idiod |
| 18:37.33 | vontrapp | idiot |
| 18:37.47 | unum | vontrapp: exactly |
| 18:37.57 | levi | unum: If a gay marriage amendment passed, there would be no basis to deny gay unions adoptions. |
| 18:37.57 | JoshH | levi: stop respecting their point of view! :P |
| 18:38.03 | unum | that's why there is no difference between a straight couple and a gay couple getting married |
| 18:38.09 | levi | JoshH: I'm just explaining it. |
| 18:38.24 | unum | levi: but that's not what he was arguing |
| 18:38.28 | vontrapp | unum: the point of marriage is to provide parents |
| 18:38.35 | vontrapp | unum: gay people should not be parents |
| 18:38.39 | vontrapp | unum: qed |
| 18:38.50 | unum | vontrapp: so people who don't intend to have children have no reason to get married? |
| 18:38.51 | JoshH | that's purely an opinion, do you admit that? |
| 18:39.01 | vontrapp | unum: you just agreed with the intentions comment!! |
| 18:39.21 | vontrapp | JoshH: sure i admit that, it's an opinion i hold very strongly |
| 18:39.21 | levi | vontrapp: I think you're overly simplifying the 'point of marriage'. |
| 18:39.24 | *** part/#utah eggyknap (n=eggyknap@unaffiliated/eggyknap) |
| 18:39.34 | vontrapp | just like yours is just an opinion that gays should be able to take over the world |
| 18:39.46 | vontrapp | levi: true, i am |
| 18:39.52 | unum | gays should be able to live their lives as they want |
| 18:39.59 | unum | just as I am able to live mine as I want |
| 18:40.04 | unum | as long as we don't hurt others |
| 18:40.07 | vontrapp | but nevertheless, it's a huge part and parcel of the marriage thingy |
| 18:40.19 | vontrapp | unum: you can live your life without marriage |
| 18:40.26 | vontrapp | you can live together without marriage |
| 18:40.34 | vontrapp | you can have nasty but sex without marriage |
| 18:40.48 | unum | vontrapp: but not being married interferes with certain government issues |
| 18:40.58 | vontrapp | oh please, like what? |
| 18:41.08 | fozzmoo | Nothing that can't be resolved by domestic partnerships. |
| 18:41.19 | unum | fozzmoo: I'm not arguing against those |
| 18:41.20 | vontrapp | like everyone sanctioning your union as 'just as good and relevant as anyone elses'?? |
| 18:41.35 | unum | I just don't think it matters what word we use |
| 18:41.37 | JoshH | vontrapp: my opinion is that everyone should mind their own business and worry about their own lives |
| 18:41.40 | vontrapp | it's NOT as relevant, that's my point, it's less relavent because you shouldn't have children |
| 18:41.57 | JoshH | i know for a fact that my own marriage would be exactly how it is right now if gays could also marry |
| 18:42.00 | vontrapp | JoshH: so mind your own business and don't tell everyone else what marriage should be |
| 18:42.04 | unum | vontrapp: so my life is less relevant because I can't have kids? |
| 18:42.06 | unum | wow thanks |
| 18:42.08 | unum | good to know |
| 18:42.22 | JoshH | vontrapp: i'm not the one who wants to decide who can and can't get married |
| 18:42.33 | vontrapp | unum: whatever, that's not what i said, i said marriage is less relavent to you because you should not have kids (if you're gay, that is) |
| 18:42.41 | vontrapp | JoshH: you ARE! |
| 18:42.50 | vontrapp | you're deciding that gays should be able to get married |
| 18:43.07 | unum | vontrapp: but he's not telling you you have to get married |
| 18:43.14 | unum | to a guy |
| 18:43.20 | vontrapp | that doesn't matter |
| 18:43.23 | JoshH | yes it does |
| 18:43.26 | unum | yes it does |
| 18:43.27 | vontrapp | no it doesn't |
| 18:43.36 | fozzmoo | Of course it does-doesn't. |
| 18:43.39 | vontrapp | have you ever learned anything about formal logic? |
| 18:43.46 | unum | yes |
| 18:43.47 | vontrapp | a => b does not mean b => a! |
| 18:43.47 | unum | lot's |
| 18:43.48 | levi | Hah! |
| 18:43.54 | unum | and informal logic as well |
| 18:44.02 | fozzmoo | casual logic. :) |
| 18:44.04 | vontrapp | levi: i'm not saying my logic is sound |
| 18:44.24 | vontrapp | i'm just saying that they are taking my arguments (which are one way implications) and twisting them around to mean the opposite thing |
| 18:44.25 | unum | such as the LDS churches statement that "marriage has always been between a man and woman" is an informal logical fallacy |
| 18:44.38 | fozzmoo | unum: pffft. |
| 18:44.46 | unum | fozzmoo: techinically it is |
| 18:45.09 | vontrapp | unum: when has it not been (recently)? |
| 18:45.15 | vontrapp | er, not recently |
| 18:45.41 | unum | I also disagree with the statement about "teaching" laws. I think unenforced/unenforcable laws are horrible things |
| 18:45.52 | unum | vontrapp: doesn't matter, it's still and informal logical fallacy |
| 18:46.00 | vontrapp | (not father/mother) => no kids |
| 18:46.02 | unum | by definition |
| 18:46.14 | vontrapp | there is no logical step that says (no kids) => no marriage |
| 18:46.38 | vontrapp | unum: hence the past tense |
| 18:46.47 | vontrapp | "has always been" |
| 18:46.55 | vontrapp | not "alwas is and always will be" |
| 18:47.07 | unum | vontrapp: it's still an informal logical fallacy |
| 18:47.33 | vontrapp | and so is your assertion that infertile or couples not intending to have kids shouldn't be married, based on my argument about kids |
| 18:47.34 | levi | unum: You might get farther if you explained what you mean by that. |
| 18:47.48 | unum | you did say a marriage with out kids was less meaningful |
| 18:48.08 | unum | vontrapp: actually you're arguing for a formal logical fallacy |
| 18:48.23 | vontrapp | no, i said being a father and mother pair qualifies you to be married _because_ you're qualified to have kids |
| 18:48.50 | vontrapp | ok, here's my presumptions in pure logic |
| 18:49.00 | JoshH | nobody needs to be qualified to have kids |
| 18:49.30 | vontrapp | JoshH: oh, so we should just give kids to monkeys? how about dogs? |
| 18:49.30 | JoshH | and most gays don't want kids |
| 18:49.45 | JoshH | and plenty of gays are raising kids right now, even though gay marriage is banned |
| 18:50.03 | vontrapp | well i strongly dissagree with that |
| 18:50.10 | vontrapp | not the fact, but the practice |
| 18:50.27 | unum | vontrapp: now right there you said "being a father and mother pair qualifies you to be married" if I don't produce sperm I can't be a father. and am not "qualified" to have kids |
| 18:50.32 | Tene | is reminded why he avoids #utah political discussions. |
| 18:50.37 | unum | it's in your argument |
| 18:50.52 | vontrapp | unum: you can still adopt! |
| 18:51.11 | JoshH | so would you be ok with gay marriage if gay adoption was banned? |
| 18:51.11 | levi | unum: 'qualified' is not the same as 'able to' |
| 18:51.11 | unum | vontrapp: what if I'm a registered sex offender |
| 18:51.18 | unum | should I not be allowed to marry |
| 18:51.19 | vontrapp | father/mother has nothing to do with sperms and eggs, it's raising children |
| 18:51.23 | unum | or only if I can have kids? |
| 18:51.40 | JoshH | should gays be allowed to be schoolteachers? |
| 18:51.56 | JoshH | or hold other "role model" positions? |
| 18:52.08 | unum | vontrapp: well I know plenty of gays that would be better parents then a lot of straight people I know |
| 18:52.22 | vontrapp | well i wouldn't want my kids taught by gays, but then it depends, maybe the particular gay teacher is really good math teacher |
| 18:52.31 | unum | even if the child doesn't have "both" role models in the home |
| 18:52.40 | vontrapp | and keeps his opinions about sexual orientation to himself in the classroom |
| 18:52.43 | JoshH | what if he wasn't going to talk about his sexuality in class, but the kids knew he was gay somehow? |
| 18:52.44 | levi | vontrapp: That sounds like homophobia to me. |
| 18:53.10 | vontrapp | levi: no, it's just preffering my children not be influenced a certain way |
| 18:53.24 | vontrapp | do you want your kids taught by drug lords? |
| 18:53.28 | JoshH | why do you assume there would be any influence? |
| 18:53.31 | levi | vontrapp: You're afraid teh ghey will wear off on them or something. That's homophobia. |
| 18:53.36 | vontrapp | JoshH: there's always influence |
| 18:53.46 | vontrapp | people influence one another |
| 18:53.52 | JoshH | my gym teacher was a total womanizer, but it didn't influence me to become one |
| 18:53.55 | levi | Same-sex attraction is not sinful. |
| 18:54.09 | vontrapp | no, but acting on it is |
| 18:54.19 | JoshH | depends on the religion |
| 18:54.22 | levi | Fornication is sinful, and no more so when it's homosexual fornication. |
| 18:54.30 | vontrapp | well, i feel like you guys are just running me in circles |
| 18:54.52 | JoshH | i asked earlier to name just one way that society would suffer if gays married |
| 18:55.00 | vontrapp | if you want to take a point and debate it out, fine, but i'm not going to keep answering to a constant onslought of point after point |
| 18:55.03 | unum | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition <- explanation of the logical fallacy earlier discussed |
| 18:55.04 | JoshH | because as far as i can tell, sweden doesn't have any problems because of it |
| 18:55.29 | vontrapp | JoshH: sweden is irrelevant |
| 18:55.40 | vontrapp | we are our own country and will make our own choices |
| 18:55.53 | JoshH | there are plenty of other countries that legalize it. if they don't get sucked away and destroyed by god, why would we? |
| 18:55.57 | vontrapp | there's not much i can do if the majority decides they are going to have gay marriage |
| 18:56.04 | unum | JoshH: that's why they keep getting hit by huricanes, oh wait that's us |
| 18:56.21 | vontrapp | but i'm never going to vote for it, or believe i'm a horrible person or denying someone's rights or being a homophobe by doing so |
| 18:56.29 | JoshH | vontrapp: ok, forget other countries, and tell me how america would suffer if we allowed it |
| 18:56.45 | vontrapp | america is already suffering |
| 18:56.52 | JoshH | vontrapp: i don't think you're a horrible person, but i do think you support restrictions on liberty |
| 18:56.57 | eightyeight | america is not going to suffer is gay marriage is allowed. gays will still be gays, marriage or no marriage |
| 18:57.03 | vontrapp | photographer doesn't want to serve client at gay wedding: sued |
| 18:57.16 | JoshH | nope |
| 18:57.19 | vontrapp | teacher says he doesn't agree with gay marriage: sued, fired, etc |
| 18:57.24 | JoshH | nope |
| 18:57.31 | eightyeight | same sex marriage is all about bringing civil liberties to american citizens |
| 18:57.36 | vontrapp | oh? that's not harmful? is that because it furthers your cause? |
| 18:57.53 | JoshH | teachers can express opinions freely. the only time they can get in trouble for it is when parents complain |
| 18:57.58 | vontrapp | if you call marriage a civil liberty |
| 18:58.00 | *** join/#utah sjansen (n=sjansen@wsip-24-234-236-98.lv.lv.cox.net) |
| 18:58.06 | sjansen | ~lart eightyeight |
| 18:58.06 | ibot | stuffs eightyeight into a shiny new tin can and vacuum seals it |
| 18:58.09 | vontrapp | i call it an institution, with clear definitions |
| 18:58.26 | unum | vontrapp: if a teacher says he supports gay marriage he can get in trouble right now, that doesn't bother you but the reverse does? |
| 18:58.32 | eightyeight | marriage is an institution that brings benefits |
| 18:58.33 | JoshH | but you can't give a concrete example of how changing that definition will hurt anyone |
| 18:58.38 | vontrapp | unum: that does bother me |
| 18:58.44 | vontrapp | he should be allowed his opinion |
| 18:58.54 | vontrapp | whether it's pro or anti gay marriage |
| 18:59.04 | Tene | I personally don't think the government should have much say at all in marriage. It's a religious thing, let the churches handle it. The government should handle things like tax benefits for unions, rights to property, rights to access for medical care, etc. |
| 18:59.04 | unum | on controversial subjects they can only respond when directly asked |
| 18:59.06 | unum | iirc |
| 18:59.21 | unum | Tene: I think you and I are agreed |
| 18:59.25 | eightyeight | Tene: agreed |
| 18:59.32 | vontrapp | Tene: sure, but that doesn't mean we should redefine marriage |
| 19:00.06 | vontrapp | that doesn't mean gays have to be allowed marriage by law |
| 19:00.08 | eightyeight | all the goverment should care about, is if they are married, do they get to make life/death situations? do they get tax and insurance rate breaks? etc |
| 19:00.21 | eightyeight | s/situations/decisions/ |
| 19:00.23 | Tene | vontrapp: I don't think that the law should say *anything* about marriage. Leave it to the churches. |
| 19:00.39 | vontrapp | Tene: but the law does say something about marriage |
| 19:00.41 | vontrapp | that's the problem |
| 19:00.45 | vontrapp | and now the gays want to redefine it |
| 19:01.13 | unum | but conservatives won't allow Tene's solution either |
| 19:01.29 | vontrapp | and that's fine |
| 19:01.37 | vontrapp | they are allowed their position |
| 19:01.37 | JoshH | why should it be left to the churches? keep the government involved how it is now, let gays do it, and if a church doesn't want to recognize someone's marriage because they are gay, and consider that person a sinner, so be it |
| 19:01.41 | vontrapp | and it's perfectly legitimage |
| 19:01.44 | vontrapp | *mate |
| 19:02.00 | vontrapp | JoshH: because letting gays do it _redefines_ it |
| 19:02.06 | JoshH | and? |
| 19:02.11 | JoshH | again, what is the problem with that? |
| 19:02.14 | vontrapp | that is at the very heart of what i dissagree with |
| 19:02.24 | JoshH | the dictionary adds new words every year |
| 19:02.24 | unum | vontrapp: it's legitimate as long as they don't claim to believe in "minimal" government |
| 19:02.33 | JoshH | and sometimes definitions change |
| 19:02.50 | vontrapp | people are allowed to have contradictory positions |
| 19:03.04 | eightyeight | how is it "redifined". as Tene mentioned, only the churches are defining it. the goverment sees it as a boolean. married: _ yes _ no |
| 19:03.20 | vontrapp | JoshH: but the government never comes in and says "this word shall mean thus, and tough beans" |
| 19:03.28 | unum | vontrapp: well, yess but I wouldn't call their stance legitimate and contradictory at the same time |
| 19:03.37 | sjansen | For that to be true, the govt. will have to stop using the term "married" for anyone. |
| 19:03.53 | vontrapp | unum: why not? |
| 19:04.03 | *** join/#utah jalbretsen (n=jalbrets@ip-64-32-192-35.iad.megapath.net) |
| 19:04.03 | sjansen | In other words, churches own the term "married" while the govt. refers to everyone as "legally joined". |
| 19:04.05 | vontrapp | it's legitimate to think one way about one thing, and another about another thing |
| 19:04.11 | JoshH | the government says that warren jeffs got married multiple times. but how can that be, if it doesn't fit the legal definition? |
| 19:04.18 | vontrapp | there is _nothing_ wrong with that |
| 19:04.35 | sjansen | Of course no one will agree to that. Because we're not really debating legal issues here. Anyone that claims otherwise is muddying the water. |
| 19:04.44 | JoshH | are polygamists not technically breaking the law since they technically can't possibly be polygamists? |
| 19:04.50 | vontrapp | which is what JoshH is really good at |
| 19:04.52 | JoshH | why dd tom green go to jail |
| 19:04.56 | sjansen | What everyone cares about, but no one will admit to, is the question: "Is it okay to be gay?" |
| 19:05.14 | eightyeight | s/gay/black/ |
| 19:05.26 | eightyeight | answer that, then the former |
| 19:05.44 | eightyeight | or s/gay/a woman/ |
| 19:06.06 | eightyeight | it all boils down to predujice |
| 19:06.23 | vontrapp | answer: it is legal to be gay, it's thus okay. it's also a sin (imo) to act on gay impulses |
| 19:06.53 | vontrapp | and above all, i strongly believe it is very wrong to hand children over to gays, where the child has no say in it |
| 19:07.11 | Tene | That's a really disturbing position. |
| 19:07.16 | unum | vontrapp: because I think legitimate and contractdictory are contractdicotory terms |
| 19:07.16 | vontrapp | why? |
| 19:07.16 | eightyeight | vontrapp: do you believe being gay is 100% a decision by the individual? |
| 19:07.22 | JoshH | most sins aren't illegal though, so why shouldn't we legally legitimize gay relationships? |
| 19:07.25 | vontrapp | eightyeight: no |
| 19:07.34 | eightyeight | vontrapp: so, there can be chemical imbalances? |
| 19:07.37 | sjansen | *shrug* It's also disturbing to let a lot of people be parent, but God does it anyway. |
| 19:07.54 | vontrapp | JoshH: because legalizing gay marriage doesn't legalize gayness, it's already legal! |
| 19:08.07 | eightyeight | vontrapp: will you go to hell if you're chemically imbalanced by being attracted to the same sex? after all, god made you that way |
| 19:08.22 | JoshH | just wondering, is anyone here both mormon, and in favor of legalizing gay marriage? or not religion, and against it? |
| 19:08.30 | vontrapp | eightyeight: i never said you would go to hell for your impositions |
| 19:08.30 | sjansen | The problem here is that some people think they can tell other people what to think. |
| 19:08.44 | eightyeight | vontrapp: i didn't say you did. i asked a question |
| 19:08.56 | eightyeight | JoshH: i'm mormon and oppose banning gay marriage |
| 19:09.05 | vontrapp | and my answer is being gay is not 100% decisory |
| 19:09.16 | sjansen | The people who that that being being oppossed to homosexuality is unacceptable are just as "predjudiced" as people who are opposed to homosexuality. |
| 19:09.24 | Tene | This conversation brings back too many memories of the disturbing contortions I went through to try to convince myself of the sanity of LDS doctrine back when I believed in the church. |
| 19:09.34 | sjansen | Who are you to tell me what my relgious beliefs can be? |
| 19:09.36 | vontrapp | sjansen: exactly |
| 19:09.42 | *** part/#utah Tene (n=tene@poipu/supporter/slacker/tene) |
| 19:09.55 | JoshH | think of it like this. social conservatives think changing the cultural norms is harmful to society, like levi said earlier, and that's why they oppose gay marriage |
| 19:10.13 | JoshH | but the argument was exactly the same when it came to interracial marriages in the past |
| 19:10.37 | JoshH | there wasn't a logical reason to ban it, they just didn't want the traditional meaning to change |
| 19:10.49 | JoshH | these days most people would call you a racist if you are against interracial marriages |
| 19:10.50 | vontrapp | but just because society eventually decided it was bad to deny interracial marriages doesn't mean they _have_ to now decide gay marriage is ok |
| 19:11.03 | vontrapp | it is not the same thing |
| 19:11.12 | vontrapp | if it was the same thing ,it would be a non issue |
| 19:11.41 | sjansen | Until we're _all_ willing to be honest about what we're really debating, we're never going to reach any agreement. |
| 19:11.48 | JoshH | so i think it's fair to say that if you oppose granting gay adults the liberty to make their relationship a marriage, simply because you don't like things to change, that you are a homophobe |
| 19:12.03 | sjansen | Frankly, I don't think hit has to be as hard as everyone makes it. |
| 19:12.04 | levi | sjansen: There's not going to be an agreement either way. |
| 19:12.43 | JoshH | i'll be honest about it |
| 19:12.59 | sjansen | I think we can all agree: Government has no business telling me I can't disapprove homosexuality. Government also has no business imposing religion. |
| 19:13.52 | JoshH | agreed |
| 19:14.15 | unum | agreed |
| 19:15.22 | sjansen | The details might require a little creativity and sacrifice from everyone, but as long as we remember those two points I'm sure we can reach an agreement. |
| 19:15.27 | JoshH | i think some people think that "imposing religion" is fine, to a certain extent, since "the US has a religious heritage" |
| 19:16.22 | JoshH | they wouldn't want a state sponsored religion, but they are fine with laws being based on christian values |
| 19:16.23 | vontrapp | i don't think holding on to the current defenition of marriage qualifies as "imposing religion" |
| 19:16.51 | vontrapp | i dare say that requiring everyone to accept gays is, in fact, imposing religion |
| 19:16.51 | sjansen | Of course. Some people also think appeasement is fine, despite repeated evidence that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. |
| 19:16.55 | JoshH | vontrapp: just tell me what the actual harm would be in altering the definition |
| 19:16.58 | elg | i'm with you sjansen. first we have to decide why we care what the government thinks is marriage. people and religions can and do attach different meanings to "marriage" |
| 19:17.11 | elg | but what is the thrust of the government definition? |
| 19:17.19 | sjansen | As they say, "those who are don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it". |
| 19:17.25 | elg | only that married people have different rules, e.g. in taxes etc. |
| 19:17.30 | vontrapp | i see it as relating to family, and who can adopt, etc |
| 19:17.39 | elg | how does the tax code apply to your religion or beliefs or family? |
| 19:17.43 | sjansen | Government imposing religion is bad for everyone, especially the religious. |
| 19:17.48 | vontrapp | in which i base my strong feelings that gay marriage should not be allowed |
| 19:18.08 | JoshH | vontrapp: do you think gay parents are better or worse for a kid than a single parent? |
| 19:18.27 | vontrapp | worse |
| 19:18.30 | elg | the time when govt can tell people whether they can have or raise children is long past (except in cases where they take them away, which are almost always botched) |
| 19:18.30 | JoshH | why? |
| 19:18.44 | vontrapp | because that's what i believe |
| 19:18.50 | elg | you don't have to be married to have or raise children. you don't even have to be heterosexual |
| 19:18.58 | elg | so what does the govt have to do with it? |
| 19:19.31 | sjansen | vontrapp: The point is, when people talk about "marriage" it's disguising two separate issues. (1) The definition of family and morality. (2) The conveying of rights and responsibilities. |
| 19:19.35 | vontrapp | ok, this is a longer explanation, but this is how i see governments role in marriage |
| 19:19.43 | elg | i can't say i'm thrilled by the idea of gay marriage, but I can't truly say I have a good argument against it when you break it down, other than that to *me* and *my religion* the word marriage doesn't mean gay couples |
| 19:19.48 | elg | but that's just a word |
| 19:19.59 | elg | i can still believe in my definition |
| 19:20.00 | vontrapp | so, if you could all please not slam me with all kinds of stuff until i'm done |
| 19:20.10 | vontrapp | ready? |
| 19:20.13 | JoshH | sure |
| 19:20.35 | vontrapp | ok, children are better off with mother and father (at the very least two parents) i think you can agree with that |
| 19:21.04 | vontrapp | sex outside of marriage results in children that do not have two parents |
| 19:21.15 | sjansen | I have a hard time claiming gays are worse at raising kids than straights. Fact is, I know a lot of straight people that are pretty lousy parents. Our government allows some pretty incompetent and even evil people to be foster parents. Adoption might be a little harder, but still... |
| 19:21.19 | vontrapp | marriage encourages monogomy |
| 19:21.31 | JoshH | my kid was born before my wedding, and she has 2 parents |
| 19:21.34 | JoshH | but go on |
| 19:21.35 | neybar | sjansen: your separation makes alot of sense, but how are can you really separate the issue when they are so closely intertwined? |
| 19:21.37 | vontrapp | which in turn increases the rate at which children are born into families that already have two parents |
| 19:22.17 | JoshH | what about married swingers? |
| 19:22.36 | vontrapp | thus, it's in societies interest to increase that incidence of children being born to unioned parents |
| 19:22.42 | vontrapp | because we agree, two parents are better than one |
| 19:22.54 | thaddeusq | JoshH: You said you would let vontrapp finish his long comments before interrupting. |
| 19:22.55 | sjansen | neybar: My bet is the first step is to give religion complete control of the term "marriage". Government needs to concentrate on "legally joining" no matter straight or gay. |
| 19:23.03 | JoshH | sorry |
| 19:23.28 | vontrapp | what is the most efficient way to encourage this? simple, encourage marriage between men and women, the more sexually active men and women are married, the higher the incidence of children with two parents |
| 19:23.55 | vontrapp | it's a path to a goal, to have more stable homes |
| 19:24.06 | neybar | so what happens in the case where religion A refuses to join a couple, and gov't does. does the couple have any legal right to sue the religion to force them to recongnize their government sanctioned right to join? |
| 19:24.19 | vontrapp | neybar: exactly! |
| 19:24.25 | unum | neybar: no |
| 19:24.26 | sjansen | Like I said, everyone is going to have to be willing to make some sacrifice. Some gays will be upset that they're being treated unfairly. Denying them the term "married" will seem disrespectful. They need to just suck it up and take consolation if the fact the government starts referring to everyone as "legally joined". |
| 19:24.46 | JoshH | encouraging that is fine, but we don't need an enforced limit to that situation |
| 19:24.46 | unum | the lds church doesn't let a lot of people join their church |
| 19:24.49 | vontrapp | yet gays are clamoring for marriage because its a 'right', all the while ensuring us they won't sue us when they get that right affirmed? |
| 19:24.59 | elg | the govt doesn't let people sue religions for telling them they're going to hell for drinking alcohol |
| 19:25.07 | neybar | unum: the easy answer is no, but I think we have enough history to show that you can push just about anything through the legal system. |
| 19:25.11 | elg | why would it be different for a marriage issue? |
| 19:25.11 | unum | elg: good example |
| 19:25.13 | JoshH | nobody ever sues religions for anything |
| 19:25.25 | elg | the religion can recognize the legal union without recognizing it as marriage |
| 19:25.28 | unum | JoshH: ecept for molesting them... |
| 19:25.36 | JoshH | people might sue a church if it tried to build a fence on their private property or something |
| 19:25.39 | thaddeusq | JoshH: Are you trying to make a joke or are you being serious? |
| 19:25.40 | JoshH | or ya, covered up molestation |
| 19:25.43 | sjansen | For gays that are locally to be treated equally under the law, that'll be acceptable. For gays that are trying to forcing every religion and every person to consider their lifestyel acceptable, it's time they took a look in the mirror and stopped fighting fascism with fascism. |
| 19:25.49 | vontrapp | elg: it already is different on the marriage people |
| 19:25.50 | neybar | JoshH: that's not true, look at all the uproar over gay priests. They |
| 19:25.55 | JoshH | but nobody sues a church over the doctrine |
| 19:25.55 | vontrapp | google for lawsuits relating to gays |
| 19:26.00 | vontrapp | there's a plethora |
| 19:26.02 | neybar | they've forced the issue, and many religions have caved |
| 19:26.08 | vontrapp | and they're all mostly rediculous |
| 19:26.23 | elg | there's lots of ridiculous suits in every topic |
| 19:26.26 | JoshH | here's an honest question |
| 19:26.30 | unum | neybar: they didn't force it through legal means |
| 19:26.38 | unum | many religions are ran as democracies |
| 19:26.39 | neybar | granted obviously not all religions have caved in to pressure regarding gay or even women priests, but that is a hot issue. |
| 19:26.49 | vontrapp | but declaring gay marriage a right would only give them a ton more traction |
| 19:26.51 | JoshH | if someday down the road, the mormon church announces a revelation that being gay and having gay relationships is ok, would you accept it, or leave the church, or what? |
| 19:27.01 | thaddeusq | How will America be better if gay marriage is granted recognition by the government? |
| 19:27.18 | unum | neybar: though back in the day most of them did "cave in" to pressure to allow blacks full membership |
| 19:27.38 | neybar | JoshH: that is an interesting argument point, but it is kind of rediculous |
| 19:27.44 | JoshH | thaddeusq: if you believe that the point of america's existence is to be a haven for liberty, then it would be better becuase there would be more libety |
| 19:27.51 | sjansen | JoshH: I've thought about that. |
| 19:27.53 | JoshH | man i can't spell today |
| 19:27.57 | vontrapp | JoshH: what if your gay partner decided your relationship was a sin, and said you were going to hell? |
| 19:27.58 | unum | vontrapp: so who cares if we give them traction |
| 19:28.07 | vontrapp | I CARE |
| 19:28.19 | vontrapp | i don't want my church being sued because gays can't go to the temple |
| 19:28.22 | thaddeusq | JoshH: my personal opinion is no matter what revelations are received by the LDS church, I always have to ask my God for myself if I'm still on the right track. |
| 19:28.33 | unum | vontrapp: that's ridiculous. it really is. |
| 19:28.43 | unum | there's absolutely no case law to favor it |
| 19:28.47 | sjansen | JoshH: Unfortunately, I don't have time to answer because I'm about to start teaching again. |
| 19:28.55 | neybar | :( |
| 19:28.58 | vontrapp | unum: but if marriage is declared a _right_... |
| 19:29.00 | vontrapp | what then?? |
| 19:29.05 | unum | still no case law |
| 19:29.06 | JoshH | sjansen, np |
| 19:29.11 | unum | doesn't change anything |
| 19:29.17 | vontrapp | oh really? no case laws for civil rights? |
| 19:29.19 | neybar | sjansen: have fun |
| 19:29.26 | unum | vontrapp: nope there's not |
| 19:29.29 | elg | vontrapp: you won't get anywhere until you recognize that the govt can't legislate heaven. |
| 19:29.40 | thaddeusq | I think we should remove the age limit to acquire a marriage license. |
| 19:29.40 | vontrapp | elg: i recognize tha |
| 19:29.41 | unum | not in this case I mean |
| 19:29.41 | vontrapp | t |
| 19:29.47 | JoshH | just something i've wondered about, and i know that many people believe it's inevitable that as gays get more socially acceptable, the church will eventually change the doctrine, similar to the blacks situation |
| 19:29.58 | elg | nor can it dictate personal morality |
| 19:29.59 | unum | they have a right to have their mariaged recognized by the government, not by all churches |
| 19:30.00 | neybar | elg: heh, can we pass that law, it will make things easier for everyone. |
| 19:30.04 | thaddeusq | Let youngsters get married. |
| 19:30.10 | vontrapp | elg: you're missing all my points |
| 19:30.16 | elg | no, you're missing mine |
| 19:30.34 | vontrapp | i don't think the government can or should legislate heaven or personal morality |
| 19:30.39 | sjansen | The short version is: I'm LDS, which means I have to accept that homosexuality is wrong. You'll notice that I don't try justify my opposition to homosexuality. That's because I don't understand it fully. But experience has given me reason to accept the source of the doctrine even if I don't understand all of it. |
| 19:30.44 | elg | i heard your points and I believe what the govt calls marriage has nothing to do with your actual concerns. you're just so opinionated about the idea that you think they do |
| 19:30.57 | vontrapp | i just think marriage is such a precious institution that it should be preserved |
| 19:31.01 | thaddeusq | JoshH: So now you are equating a sexual preference with race? |
| 19:31.02 | elg | and so it shall |
| 19:31.10 | elg | it's an eternal principle after all |
| 19:31.18 | JoshH | thaddeusq: i do believe that both are something a person cannot control, so yes |
| 19:31.20 | elg | what if the govt stopped recognizing marriage of any sort? |
| 19:31.36 | elg | we'd still get married in the temple and raise children in righteousness |
| 19:31.45 | vontrapp | what if my children are taught in school that gay marriage is just as good as straight marriage? |
| 19:31.56 | vontrapp | well then i teach them the right way |
| 19:31.57 | thaddeusq | JoshH: What if somebody were to say that they have a sexual attraction to goats or sheep? |
| 19:32.02 | vontrapp | but they're still going to be confused |
| 19:32.05 | JoshH | schools don't teach that marriage is good or bad |
| 19:32.08 | vontrapp | parenting is already hard enough |
| 19:32.30 | elg | you teach them at home first |
| 19:32.34 | JoshH | thaddeusq: i'd hate to be them then |
| 19:32.39 | neybar | I personally don't have any particular gripe about two individuals living together and enjoying the same tax/health benefits that I do. Like sjansen said, maybe we need to call it something different from marriage.. common law? |
| 19:32.51 | thaddeusq | That sexual attraction to goats or sheep is illegal, but, can they control it? |
| 19:32.52 | elg | you can't shelter them from the world. the world will get access to them. you have to teach them correct principles and let them loose |
| 19:33.04 | vontrapp | elg: i've already said i don't care that anyone is gay, and they can be gay all they want |
| 19:33.07 | vontrapp | but don't touch marriage |
| 19:33.12 | JoshH | i think we can safely limit this discussion to human sexuality |
| 19:33.15 | sjansen | One other thing I'll say: History has taught that keeping religion and government separate tends to work better. |
| 19:33.25 | vontrapp | and there's reasons for me feeling that way, rational, irrational, religious, all flavors |
| 19:33.36 | thaddeusq | I personally believe that being gay is a choice. |
| 19:33.43 | JoshH | sjansen: indeed |
| 19:33.44 | sjansen | Another thing I'll say: God seems to be okay with allowing a lot of people be parents that I sure wouldn't have allowed if I were in control. |
| 19:34.13 | thaddeusq | thanks God that sjansen is not in control. |
| 19:34.21 | vontrapp | sjansen: because god doesn't work that way, just like god doesn't take children away from gay parents that do have children |
| 19:34.22 | JoshH | thaddeusq: i will say that i have personally known a few "gay" people who have "switched" back and forth at times, and for them, it may very well be a choice, but i have known more who have always been the way they are, and i don't believe they chose it. |
| 19:34.30 | sjansen | The last thing I'll say: Some people need to be more sensitive about how they express their arguments. Comparing homosexuality to sex with goats is... less than Christian. |
| 19:34.34 | neybar | is glad too :p |
| 19:34.46 | thaddeusq | JoshH: then you and I will have to agree to disagree. |
| 19:34.50 | elg | vontrapp: you argue for the status quo because it is aligned with your beliefs. There's nothing wrong or shameful in feeling that way, but it doesn't make a very good argument. |
| 19:35.04 | thaddeusq | you don't believe it's a choice, and I do. |
| 19:35.09 | vontrapp | but i did give a good argument |
| 19:35.12 | thaddeusq | Fair enough, I'm ok with that. |
| 19:35.19 | JoshH | me too |
| 19:35.36 | vontrapp | JoshH: your argument is "we all have to be the same!" |
| 19:35.36 | unum | now lets talk about jingoism! |
| 19:35.55 | thaddeusq | gets back to doing important work. |
| 19:36.00 | vontrapp | JoshH: and i'm okay with that, just don't tell me my argument has no merit |
| 19:36.03 | JoshH | i'm ok with whatever anyone believes about gay people, or black people, or witches. |
| 19:36.13 | elg | your argument was based on the premise that people are encouraged to be monogomous because they might get married |
| 19:36.28 | elg | i don't see any support for that. people choose to be monogomous because they believe it's right |
| 19:36.31 | vontrapp | no, my argument was that getting married encourages monogomy |
| 19:36.47 | vontrapp | not that monogomy is encouraged simply because marriage is there |
| 19:36.52 | elg | and usually people don't get married unless they have a belief in monogamy already |
| 19:36.55 | neybar | have you seen the divorce rate / infidelity? I'm not sure that your argument holds |
| 19:36.55 | JoshH | i think it's the other way around |
| 19:36.56 | elg | or, want a tax break... |
| 19:37.05 | JoshH | if someone thinks monogamy is the way to go, they will seek out a spouse |
| 19:37.14 | JoshH | if someone doesn't want to be monogamous, they won't get married |
| 19:37.26 | vontrapp | JoshH: ok ,so let them not get married |
| 19:37.29 | JoshH | nobody is going to say "well gee i'm married now, guess i better quit all that sleeping around" |
| 19:37.40 | vontrapp | JoshH: but you're the one who wants to say they need to get married |
| 19:37.53 | vontrapp | JoshH: really? really? |
| 19:37.55 | JoshH | i don't think anyone NEEDS to get married |
| 19:38.01 | JoshH | i think whoever wants to, should be able to |
| 19:38.08 | vontrapp | believe it or not, there are people who take commitments seriously |
| 19:38.14 | JoshH | indeed there are |
| 19:38.17 | neybar | of course |
| 19:38.18 | JoshH | and those people should be able to commit |
| 19:38.22 | JoshH | whether they are gay or straight |
| 19:38.29 | vontrapp | ok, so let them |
| 19:38.33 | vontrapp | but you don't have to call it marriage |
| 19:38.38 | elg | and certainly no homosexual is going to choose to be heterosexual just so they can get married |
| 19:39.17 | vontrapp | elg: it comes down to this, encouraging marriage (by the government) does not come for free |
| 19:39.25 | vontrapp | so the more efficient you can make it the better |
| 19:39.40 | elg | efficient? |
| 19:40.01 | vontrapp | and there are completely rational reasons to restrict the benefits of marriage to a certain class, especially since marriage is already clearly defined that way! |
| 19:40.17 | elg | so what are the benefits? |
| 19:40.20 | elg | from a govt perspective? |
| 19:40.20 | vontrapp | so you're not spending resources on gay marriage, which does not provide the same benefit |
| 19:40.32 | JoshH | i think encouring what you describe is different, and preferable, to actually restricting it |
| 19:40.43 | elg | why are we spending resources on married people in the first place? |
| 19:40.54 | elg | i mean, other than we would otherwise be spending on them. |
| 19:40.57 | vontrapp | elg: good question |
| 19:41.00 | vontrapp | maybe we shouldn't be |
| 19:41.09 | elg | now that sounds more like a libertarian |
| 19:41.09 | vontrapp | but we certainly shouldn't extend the benefits to gays |
| 19:41.13 | neybar | what if we just reform the tax code so that it 1. makes sense, and 2. it is equal. It shouldn't matter what your sexual preferences are when it comes to being taxed. |
| 19:41.14 | JoshH | but what's the point of that sort of "encouragement"? nobody is going to switch their orientation simply because of government encouragement |
| 19:41.44 | vontrapp | JoshH: the point is not to switch the orientation |
| 19:41.50 | vontrapp | the point is to _have_ a union |
| 19:41.56 | vontrapp | a commitment |
| 19:42.10 | vontrapp | and i'm all for gays having commitment |
| 19:42.20 | vontrapp | but just don't redefine marriage |
| 19:42.22 | vontrapp | that's all i ask |
| 19:42.35 | elg | so if gays might raise children even though they're not heterosexual or married... how does denying them a form of union help your 2 constant parents argument? |
| 19:42.52 | vontrapp | elg: you're looking at it backwards |
| 19:42.56 | JoshH | ok, fine. you would support a "civil union" with all the same government granted benefits? |
| 19:43.03 | elg | vontrapp: my point is to put yourself in the position where nobody else defines marriage for you |
| 19:43.22 | JoshH | i think most gays would be fine with that, they just think it's silly to be so anal (no pun intended) about the definition of marriage |
| 19:43.26 | vontrapp | ok ok, the government _is_ in marriage |
| 19:43.42 | vontrapp | because of that, and because gays want to be equal, their solution is to redefine marriage |
| 19:43.50 | vontrapp | i'd rather get the government out of marriage than redefine it |
| 19:44.01 | JoshH | eventually, one or the other is bound to happen |
| 19:44.03 | vontrapp | so gays, go start a movement to get the government out of marriage |
| 19:44.12 | JoshH | i can't imagine a world 300 years from now where gays can't be "married" |
| 19:44.15 | *** join/#utah Sargun (n=Sargun@atarack/staff/sargun) |
| 19:44.25 | JoshH | they are already 1000 times more socially acceptable than they were 20 years ago |
| 19:44.44 | JoshH | i just don't see any reason to delay the inevitable, just to maintain a traditional definition |
| 19:44.45 | elg | they probably looked at the situation (if "they" the collective can do something so conscious) and decided it was easier to get in on this marriage thing than to strip benefits from marrieds or suddenly make married people all just civil unions |
| 19:44.50 | Sargun | who, homosexuals? |
| 19:45.10 | vontrapp | well, that's were they are going to receive resistance from me (and like mindeds) |
| 19:45.15 | elg | seems like the best shot if I put myself in that position |
| 19:45.20 | vontrapp | hopefully that resistance is enough that they follow a different route |
| 19:45.23 | vontrapp | maybe it won't be |
| 19:45.29 | JoshH | ok, just thought of this |
| 19:45.31 | elg | right, because you're fanatical about the definition of the word marriage |
| 19:45.32 | vontrapp | but i feel like i should offer the resistance as much as i can |
| 19:45.44 | vontrapp | ok, maybe i'm fanatical |
| 19:45.56 | JoshH | back in the 1800s, when mormons were polygamists... if you live then, would you have wanted the government to redefine marriage to make that legal? |
| 19:46.03 | elg | or, rather, the use of the word marriage (which has a pretty well-defined meaning) for something that doesn't meet the existing definition |
| 19:46.08 | elg | grammar nazis |
| 19:46.11 | JoshH | or keep that strictly within the church |
| 19:46.19 | elg | alas language keeps evolving |
| 19:46.23 | JoshH | with no government rights granted |
| 19:46.36 | vontrapp | JoshH: i'm not morally opposed to polygamy, so sure, they could make that legal |
| 19:46.40 | elg | what if there's another country out there with words for heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, and general marriage? |
| 19:47.01 | JoshH | so you admit that the issue isn't whether marriage can be redefined, just whether a new definition can include something you're morally against? |
| 19:47.06 | elg | s/country/culture\/language/ |
| 19:47.08 | vontrapp | marriage is defined, after all, as 'man and woman', and not necesarily one |
| 19:47.27 | elg | but by whom? by God and/or tradition |
| 19:47.28 | vontrapp | JoshH: i'm entitled to be against it |
| 19:47.42 | vontrapp | elg: by god |
| 19:47.47 | vontrapp | and tradition |
| 19:47.55 | elg | so why would God's definition be in danger? |
| 19:48.03 | vontrapp | *sigh* |
| 19:48.51 | levi | elg: What are your thoughts on the LDS position 'interview' on lds.org? |
| 19:48.52 | elg | I'm just sayin' - there are much more profitable routes to take to encourage people to live moral lives |
| 19:48.53 | JoshH | why would god care what's legal on earth anyway? he already has his own punishment ready to go after the sinners die, right? |
| 19:48.59 | vontrapp | i just think that just because God is all powerful and his definition stands no matter what, doesn't mean we should just say "blah, whatever, God knows what's right" |
| 19:49.09 | Sargun | You guys know how profitable marriage licenses are? |
| 19:49.16 | elg | vontrapp: but that's the libertarian position in a nutshell |
| 19:49.18 | Sargun | Too bad -- God doesn't exist. |
| 19:49.34 | elg | as long as we're not hurting each other |
| 19:49.34 | vontrapp | well i'm not pure libertarian |
| 19:50.31 | vontrapp | if 'we' do lose on the marriage battle, the world won't end, i won't join a civil war |
| 19:50.39 | vontrapp | but that doesn't mean i can't fight for it right now |
| 19:50.55 | unum | levi: two of my earlier statements were based off of that interview |
| 19:50.59 | eightyeight | waits for the debate to end |
| 19:51.10 | levi | unum: I'm aware of that. |
| 19:51.12 | vontrapp | well, i guess if the prophet said "take up your arms, this marriage thing has gone too far" then i probably would |
| 19:51.13 | JoshH | if god wants people on earth to have free agency, and is going to punish people in the afterlife if they don't obey him while alive, then why does it matter what the government legalizes? |
| 19:51.15 | vontrapp | but short of that ... |
| 19:51.20 | levi | unum: I was asking elg, not you. |
| 19:51.39 | unum | levi: sorry just wanted to be involved :) |
| 19:52.01 | vontrapp | that's another reason i so strongly support marriage, is because the prophets have directed us to do so |
| 19:52.10 | vontrapp | so shoot me, whatever |
| 19:52.17 | JoshH | vontrapp: you would kill somebody if the prophet told you to? |
| 19:52.21 | unum | I need to get a dvr and record tonights debate and watch it that way |
| 19:52.27 | JoshH | or did i misunderstand that |
| 19:52.28 | unum | i don't think I can watch the whole thing |
| 19:52.44 | vontrapp | well, didn't nephi? |
| 19:53.00 | JoshH | i have no idea |
| 19:53.06 | unum | vontrapp: nephi was told by God not the prophet |
| 19:53.07 | JoshH | but if he did, i think that's pretty bad |
| 19:53.12 | vontrapp | JoshH: don't worry, i'm sure the prophet wouldn't tell me to go kill you or anyone else |
| 19:53.20 | *** part/#utah jalbretsen (n=jalbrets@ip-64-32-192-35.iad.megapath.net) |
| 19:53.20 | vontrapp | well, because he was the prophet |
| 19:53.44 | JoshH | that's when religion can become dangerous |
| 19:54.03 | unum | actually his father was.... |
| 19:54.38 | JoshH | muslim terrorists think god wants them to kill us |
| 19:54.39 | eightyeight | levi: did Tene send you a draft of his post from last night's discussion? |
| 19:54.47 | vontrapp | meh, he was prophet material, one of the presidency, if you will ;) |
| 19:55.12 | vontrapp | JoshH: and they're entitled to that belief |
| 19:55.21 | vontrapp | and we're entitled to defend ourselves :) |
| 19:55.46 | JoshH | but there would be no need, if people didn't take their religion so seriously that it became a danger to humanity |
| 19:55.49 | JoshH | they are called fanatics |
| 19:56.00 | JoshH | and if you would kill at the orders of your prophet, then you are a fanatic as well |
| 19:56.21 | vontrapp | so a person who kills at the order of their commanding officer? in the army? |
| 19:56.23 | eightyeight | levi: btw, are you still running the programming "club" (for lack of a better word) |
| 19:56.23 | vontrapp | fanatic? |
| 19:56.39 | JoshH | bad analogy |
| 19:56.43 | vontrapp | why? |
| 19:56.50 | vontrapp | because it's not 'religion'? |
| 19:57.25 | JoshH | if you want to be technical, i do think that killing for an unjust reason is wrong, even in war |
| 19:57.29 | vontrapp | what is the difference, anyway? one is 'legal'? |
| 19:57.40 | levi | eightyeight: I was never really running it, just trying to plan it out. And it fizzled when I got swamped with life a while back, but it's always playing around in the back of my head. |
| 19:57.41 | vontrapp | so do i |
| 19:57.44 | JoshH | if your sergeant tells you to kill a family that lives in the house your squad just ransacked, that's wrong |
| 19:57.47 | JoshH | and illegal |
| 19:57.55 | elg | hence war crimes |
| 19:57.59 | JoshH | same thing when a prophet tells you to kill |
| 19:58.06 | JoshH | if you obey, that's wrong |
| 19:58.08 | *** part/#utah gdusbabek (n=gdusbabe@70.102.114.38) |
| 19:58.11 | vontrapp | what if the prophet says to defend? |
| 19:58.24 | JoshH | defending yourself is fine |
| 19:58.25 | vontrapp | i.e. not go out murdering, but just fight for a cuase? |
| 19:58.57 | eightyeight | levi: just curious if you were still playing around with it |
| 20:00.11 | vontrapp | i would call the entire war in iraq murderous, but the army believes they are fighting for a cause |
| 20:00.51 | levi | eightyeight: Not terribly actively, I'm afraid. I'm still engaged in the same sorts of activities that prompted me to want to start it, though. :) |
| 20:01.05 | *** join/#utah vontrapp (n=vontrapp@vader.cs.byu.edu) |
| 20:01.05 | ibot | steals vontrapp's parking sticker |
| 20:01.16 | *** join/#utah eggyknap (n=eggyknap@unaffiliated/eggyknap) |
| 20:07.22 | levi | Lately I'm playing around with Factor and possibly some F#. |
| 20:14.08 | eightyeight | how come? work-related, or just pure curiosity? |
| 20:14.33 | elg | nobody ever accuses levi of being a cat |
| 20:14.37 | elg | he'd be long dead by now |
| 20:14.43 | eightyeight | heh |
| 20:29.21 | elg | http://hans.fugal.net/tmp/immsTunes.png |
| 20:29.55 | levi | I bought 'Expert F#' from Amazon, and I'm anxiously awaiting it. |
| 20:30.32 | elg | imms + iTunes beats genius any day |
| 20:30.33 | levi | And yeah, mostly curiosity, but I'm going to be writing a paper on Factor for a class, and my other class requires a .net language be used, and it's an excuse to get more familiar with F#. |
| 20:30.37 | harleypig | JoshH: just been reading back ... you think that if God, through a prophet ordered someone to kill everyone, women, children is wrong? |
| 20:31.27 | levi | In the Old Testament, God got pretty steamed when the Israelites *didn't* wipe out all traces of the cultures they warred with. |
| 20:32.08 | harleypig | that's what I wad getting to ... in fact, they were ordered to make sure the unborn children were killed as well. |
| 20:32.16 | levi | Granted, I don't think their hesitation was based on morality as much as it was on greed. Why kill the women and livestock when you can take them? |
| 20:32.35 | harleypig | :] True ... but the order still came from God. |
| 20:32.56 | levi | But it was God operating on a fundamentally different set of rules. |
| 20:34.11 | harleypig | JoshH statement was that a prophet ordering people to kill was wrong. |
| 20:34.32 | levi | I'm not sure that's a false statement today. |
| 20:34.42 | harleypig | God didn't talk to the people, he talked to a prophet, who then passed the order along. |
| 20:35.06 | harleypig | levi: So, God isn't the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? |
| 20:35.35 | levi | He is, but he fundamentally changed the nature of his covenant with the human race through Jesus. |
| 20:36.23 | harleypig | I disagree with the words 'fundamentally changed' but I can see the point your trying to make. |
| 20:36.50 | levi | I'm not sure how else you can describe the old covenant vs. the new covenant. |
| 20:37.05 | harleypig | It's a foundation for the new covenant. |
| 20:37.23 | harleypig | the old covenant wasn't removed, it was built on |
| 20:37.34 | levi | It was fulfilled. Its demands were met. |
| 20:37.49 | levi | A new contract was drawn. |
| 20:37.54 | harleypig | yes ... but it still wasn't removed ... it was expanded upon. |
| 20:38.06 | levi | The new contract depended upon the fulfillment of the old, but it was fundamentally different. |
| 20:38.45 | harleypig | In what way? |
| 20:38.54 | levi | The very *rules* of the two covenants are inconsistent with one another. |
| 20:39.00 | levi | Have you read Leviticus lately? |
| 20:39.09 | harleypig | Then the 10 commandments no longer apply? |
| 20:39.28 | levi | There were a whole lot more than 10 commandments! |
| 20:40.06 | harleypig | The old covenant was a much restricted and restrictive version of the new covenant. |
| 20:40.32 | harleypig | And much of the old covenants are still applied, if in symbolic form. |
| 20:40.33 | levi | It was a *different* covenant. |
| 20:40.42 | goozbach | wow! politics abortion *AND* religion, all in one day |
| 20:41.10 | neybar | what separation of church and state? :) |
| 20:41.14 | harleypig | Why do you say it was a different covenant? You're saying the old covenant was completely removed and replaced by the new one, right? |
| 20:41.32 | levi | Pre-Jesus, only the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was under covenant. Post-Jesus, the coveneant was open to the entire world. |
| 20:41.45 | levi | Circumcision was no longer required. Dietary laws were no longer required. |
| 20:42.33 | harleypig | None of those prove removal ... those parts of the contract were fullfilled and a new contract was made that expanded on the original concepts. |
| 20:42.40 | levi | Yes, the old covenant was completely fulfilled and replaced by the new one. That's not to say that they don't share underlying principles. |
| 20:42.50 | unum | http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0vtHwWReGU0 <- speaking of politics |
| 20:42.53 | harleypig | then how can they be fundamentally different? |
| 20:43.12 | levi | harleypig: What does fulfillment *mean* if it doesn't mean that it's done its job and is now in the past? |
| 20:43.29 | levi | The normal sense of contract fulfulment is that both parties have met their obligations. |
| 20:44.03 | harleypig | but it doesn't automatically imply and end to the contract. |
| 20:44.22 | levi | If the contract is still in force, it hasn't been fulfilled. |
| 20:44.44 | elg | so you're still bound by the contract that you made to pay for your first car? |
| 20:44.53 | elg | (or harley ;-) |
| 20:45.30 | harleypig | I'm not arguing that ... I'm arguing that the old covenant wasn't *replaced* but that it was *built* upon. |
| 20:45.36 | harleypig | expanded |
| 20:45.42 | harleypig | reworked. |
| 20:45.49 | levi | If that were true, we would still have to abide by all of the old laws. |
| 20:45.57 | harleypig | No we wouldn't. |
| 20:46.11 | harleypig | that's what reworking a contract would do. |
| 20:46.16 | elg | now it sounds like we're arguing DRCS semantics; -) |
| 20:46.22 | levi | Reworking a contract invalidates the old version and creates a new version. |
| 20:46.40 | harleypig | The aaronic priesthood is from the old covenant. Why is it still around if the old covenant was replaced? |
| 20:46.50 | levi | Because it's also a part of the new one. |
| 20:47.13 | harleypig | DRCS? |
| 20:47.55 | elg | distributed revision control systems |
| 20:48.12 | harleypig | ah |
| 20:48.43 | elg | is a branch part of the same repo or a clone of the old one? |
| 20:49.11 | unum | part of the same |
| 20:49.20 | harleypig | levi: I think we're straining a difference in viewpoint. |
| 20:49.28 | harleypig | s/g a d/g at g/ |
| 20:49.33 | harleypig | meh |
| 20:49.41 | harleypig | I think we're straining at a difference in viewpoint. |
| 20:50.12 | elg | speak for yourself. i'm straining at gnats |
| 20:50.15 | levi | Possibly. |
| 20:50.37 | levi | In any case, some aspects of the contract are very different. |
| 20:51.30 | harleypig | I don't disagree with that. I disagree with 'fundamentally changed' |
| 20:52.09 | levi | Well, I think 'open to only blood-descendants of a certain line' to 'open to all humanity' is a fundamental change. |
| 20:52.36 | harleypig | ok |
| 20:52.50 | levi | And 'eye for an eye' vs. 'turn the other cheek' |
| 20:52.53 | harleypig | I think it's an expansion. |
| 20:53.25 | harleypig | And the D&C says 'turn the other cheek only so many times then belt them back' |
| 20:53.32 | harleypig | paraphrased |
| 20:53.37 | harleypig | slightly |
| 20:53.42 | jsmith | reads Luke 22:35-38 and decides that he needs to buy two swords |
| 20:55.19 | harleypig | which, to me, sounds like another expansion |
| 20:55.37 | levi | Well, you're free to have your interpretation. |
| 20:55.44 | harleypig | :] |
| 20:56.00 | harleypig | even if I'm wrong? |
| 20:59.34 | levi | Even if you're right! ;) |
| 21:00.53 | *** join/#utah Tene (n=tene@poipu/supporter/slacker/tene) |
| 21:01.22 | harleypig | :] |
| 21:01.28 | Tene | prods levi for feedback on that draft.; |
| 21:01.33 | Tene | drives to the airport. |
| 21:10.06 | sjansen | Okay, I'm back. Everybody get ready... set... fight! |
| 21:10.30 | jsmith | I still want to know... is two swords enough? Can I use that to justify owning a gun? |
| 21:10.39 | jsmith | pours kerosene on the fire |
| 21:11.36 | elg | http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1078 |
| 21:11.38 | brac | [PHD Comics: Enrollment vs. Unemployment Rate] |
| 21:13.37 | jsmith | elg: Wow... that's awesome! |
| 21:13.38 | goozbach | jsmith: haven't you seen the modern romeo and juliet? |
| 21:13.48 | jsmith | goozbach: Nope. |
| 21:13.54 | goozbach | swords are just a model of handgun |
| 21:14.01 | jsmith | goozbach: I was too scarred from reading it in high school. |
| 21:14.18 | goozbach | you should all watch "if all movies had cell phones" |
| 21:14.33 | goozbach | http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1832002 |
| 21:14.36 | brac | [If All Movies Had Cell Phones - CollegeHumor video] |
| 21:19.22 | *** join/#utah gshipley (n=gshipley@nat/redhat/x-486f3cb6df1f0411) |
| 21:19.23 | sjansen | JoshH: To answer your question, if LDS doctrine is changed to accept homosexuality then I would have to accept the change if I wanted to continue to be LDS. |
| 21:20.47 | sjansen | I don't think it's very likely, but I try (when it actually matters) be honest with myself. I don't know how I would react. I would have to continue to feel that God leads the LDS church. |
| 21:21.36 | sjansen | It's easy to say that I'll never change how I feel, but it isn't very honest or humble. |
| 21:21.52 | eightyeight | humility shows dependency |
| 21:22.16 | sjansen | (This also explains why I like to fight about computers and other stuff that doesn't matter as much.) |
| 21:22.37 | goozbach | rail against that machine, sjansen! |
| 21:23.10 | eightyeight | isn't it supposed to be rage against the machine? |
| 21:23.25 | sjansen | We can look to historical precedent to get an idea, however. When the LDS church began to allow _all_ blacks to receive the priesthood, some people left the church, others welcomed it as a long overdue change. |
| 21:23.59 | sjansen | Some felt if was bowing to pressure. Others felt that if it were mere bowing to pressure, it probably would have happened a lot earlier. |
| 21:24.03 | goozbach | eightyeight: you are correct "rage" against the machine, it's "rail" against the comming of the night |
| 21:24.10 | eightyeight | heh |
| 21:24.16 | JoshH | i think it's bound to happen someday, and i can picture some mormon offshoot sects sprouting up when it does, similar to what happened when polygamy was banned |
| 21:24.39 | goozbach | bound to happen allowing homosexuality? |
| 21:24.45 | JoshH | yes |
| 21:24.47 | JoshH | not for a while though |
| 21:24.49 | eightyeight | no |
| 21:25.20 | sjansen | Only the idiotic and prideful claimed to fully understand the entire issue. Sure, you can talk about the "mark of Cain" but that's not a real reason... at least to modern reasoning. Instead, better to stick to "because that's the way it is". |
| 21:26.08 | JoshH | isn't it true that homosexuality is only mentioned directly in a few places in the scriptures? mostly in the old testament, along with other crimes like eating shellfish and such that nobody cares about today? |
| 21:26.25 | sjansen | eightyeight: Humility might show dependency, but I hope you're not implying that's a bad thing. |
| 21:26.30 | eightyeight | homosexuality will never be allowed in the lds church due to the proclamation on the family, which the church holds as doctrine, that marriage is sactioned by god between a man and woman |
| 21:26.36 | eightyeight | sjansen: no, of course not |
| 21:26.57 | *** join/#utah wps (n=wps@208.53.47.251) |
| 21:27.03 | JoshH | i think as gays continue to get more mainstream and accepted, churches that don't accept them will be considered backwards and intolerant, and will eventually change their position |
| 21:27.30 | JoshH | america is gradually becoming less religious, and younger religious people are more tolerant than their elders were |
| 21:28.39 | sjansen | JoshH: That's assuming that all churches are governed by the reasoning of man. However, if God exists then there's a pretty good chance at least one church is guided by the will of God instead of the opinion of men. |
| 21:29.25 | eightyeight | sjansen: my statement reflected that humility and dependency are inseperable. a humble man towards god, relies on god for guidance. an arrogant man relies on himself. that's all |
| 21:30.45 | sjansen | Obviously, LDS members believe that the LDS church is governed by the will of God. Some are also willing to recognize that other churches are also guided by God, although they'd probably argue that only the LDS church is guided directly by God alone. |
| 21:31.04 | eightyeight | so, if a church were to change its position on marriage, you as a member need to show your humility towards god that he's leading your church |
| 21:31.13 | eightyeight | if you believe, that is |
| 21:31.34 | sjansen | If that is the case, then LDS doctrine is controlled not by what men think but by what men are prepared to learn from God. |
| 21:32.30 | harleypig | eightyeight: Elder Packer made the same kind of reasoned arguments against the blacks ever holding the priesthood. |
| 21:34.13 | harleypig | sjansen: haven't the prophet said that the members lack of understanding has held back new prophecy? |
| 21:34.21 | harleypig | s/prophet/prophets/ |
| 21:35.25 | JoshH | the fact that the LDS church banned polygamy and accepted blacks means that they either change doctrines for political reasons, or that god (if he exists) tells them to change when they need to fit in with the times. in either case, it's perfectly plausible to believe they will eventually accept gays, for the same reasons |
| 21:36.14 | harleypig | it was definitely political reasons for polygamy, but it wasn't until God said so. |
| 21:36.34 | harleypig | we haven't been told the reasons behind blacks not being able to hold the priesthood. |
| 21:38.09 | eightyeight | JoshH: and the word of wisdom will be accepted? and the book of mormon denounced as scripture? and temple ceremonies eraticated? |
| 21:38.37 | eightyeight | why just stop at gays? if the church bows to any political pressure, why have a church at all? |
| 21:38.54 | JoshH | churchs have to evolve to survive |
| 21:38.59 | eightyeight | where does it stop? what regulates what changes and what doesn't? |
| 21:39.07 | JoshH | that's why catholics don't torture scientists anymore |
| 21:39.07 | eightyeight | wrong |
| 21:39.08 | harleypig | God. |
| 21:39.09 | Sargun_Screen | God, this meeting sucks. |
| 21:39.25 | harleypig | eightyeight: God regulates the church. |
| 21:39.28 | elg | Sargun_Screen: wrong channel |
| 21:39.33 | eightyeight | harleypig: agreed |
| 21:39.43 | Sargun_Screen | Gawd. |
| 21:39.48 | JoshH | whether god directs a church to evolve, or a church just does it, they do |
| 21:39.51 | Sargun_Screen | This is sooooo cool. |
| 21:39.54 | harleypig | eightyeight: But the church *doesn't* bow to any political pressure. |
| 21:39.57 | sjansen | eightyeight: Being subject to political pressure is a part of LDS doctrine. "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" |
| 21:40.00 | eightyeight | harleypig: agreed |
| 21:40.06 | unum | JoshH: I think they do have a point with the word of wisdom. |
| 21:40.18 | JoshH | the church creates political pressure, which is why alcopops are now banned from utah :P |
| 21:40.43 | unum | but the world wide social norm is to drink |
| 21:40.52 | eightyeight | sjansen: ok. fair enough. so, if the law states that everyone must drink 1oz of alcohol / day for health, would the lds church change it's doctrine? |
| 21:41.30 | eightyeight | as silly as the law is |
| 21:41.39 | JoshH | doesn't the word of wisdom just say somethign like strong drinks are for washing your body? maybe someday teh church will say "our interpretation was a little bit off, it turns out that tea is actually ok" |
| 21:42.17 | JoshH | in the early days of utah, the mormons probably would have been upset if they were told that drinking was no longer allowed |
| 21:42.33 | JoshH | i understand quite a few of them were responsible drinkers |
| 21:42.44 | harleypig | eightyeight: it might not change it, but it would probably make allowances for the law. |
| 21:42.44 | eightyeight | they were told in the early days of utah. those who didn't believe, left. those who did, stayed |
| 21:42.52 | unum | the alright ban came later |
| 21:43.04 | unum | s/alright/out right |
| 21:43.14 | sjansen | eightyeight: I don't want to get into overly simplistic hypotheticals. There are much more interesting historical realities instead. The authority and actions of local German leaders during WWII for example. |
| 21:43.35 | JoshH | the word of wisdom doesn't mention alcohol, or caffiene, etc. the rules against those are an interpretation, which may or may not change somewhat in the future. |
| 21:43.41 | harleypig | In Jerusalem wards meet on Saturdays. |
| 21:43.43 | harleypig | or used to. |
| 21:43.52 | JoshH | besides, jesus himself drank wine, and everyone knows that it was NOT just grape juice |
| 21:44.26 | eightyeight | JoshH: brigham young was asked by a congregation what "strong drinks" meant. he said it to be interpreted as tea and coffee |
| 21:44.29 | sjansen | JoshH: The point is, part of faith is... well, faith. Obeying a commandment because it is a commandment from a person in authority. Not because you understand the commandment, but because you accept the authority. |
| 21:44.49 | sjansen | Frankly, a lot of the stuff people spend their time fighting over is minor details. |
| 21:44.56 | sjansen | "Don't sweat the details." |
| 21:45.11 | *** join/#utah zzzirk (n=lzirkel@c-67-177-13-115.hsd1.ut.comcast.net) |
| 21:45.15 | eightyeight | sjansen: although there's nothing wrong with finding out why. we're encourage to seek knowledge |
| 21:45.18 | eightyeight | but i agree |
| 21:45.21 | elg | i think an important tenet of our faith is that we don't have to have blind faith in "some guy" but are entitled to take it up in prayer for confirmation |
| 21:45.35 | sjansen | That's why the top leadership of the church spends most of its time talking about the basics like faith, repentance, charity, etc. |
| 21:45.37 | eightyeight | "he who has to be commanded in all things is slothful, and not a wise servant" |
| 21:46.03 | unum | who thinks tonight will make or break the mccain campaign? |
| 21:46.12 | sjansen | Some of the rank and file members insist on spending a lot of time arguing trivia, but it sure isn't because they're following the example of their leadership. |
| 21:46.24 | elg | unum: i don't, though it's a nonzero possibility |
| 21:46.35 | elg | it's also a nonzero possbility it swings the other way |
| 21:46.45 | JoshH | i understand your faith and all that, my point is just that the rules and doctrine in it DO change sometimes, and it is within the realm of possibility that the position on gays could change in the future |
| 21:46.46 | elg | but mostly i think it'll not be a pivotal moment. |
| 21:46.47 | unum | elg: I don't think it can make it for the campaign |
| 21:46.56 | eightyeight | unum: i think palin is well prepped, but she is moderated by a liberal publishing a book about obama on election day |
| 21:47.00 | unum | well Biden could make it for the McCain campaign |
| 21:47.17 | JoshH | sjansen, i think that's true |
| 21:47.27 | sjansen | Sadly, I have to teach again. |
| 21:47.37 | elg | ~learn |
| 21:47.38 | ibot | somebody said learn was the opposite of not learn, or something you do every day, apparently. |
| 21:47.45 | unum | eightyeight: she realy bombed that interview last week |
| 21:48.11 | eightyeight | she was nervous though, you could tell |
| 21:48.23 | sjansen | JoshH: I think I've already recognized that LDS doctrine on homosexuality could change. Although I don't think it's likely so far. |
| 21:48.31 | eightyeight | she may be nervous tonight also |
| 21:48.42 | JoshH | ya, it was others who said no |
| 21:48.47 | unum | a debate in front of an audience is more nerve racking than an interview imnsho |
| 21:49.17 | eightyeight | i'm highly confident it won't change. however, if it does, i'll accept it as god's will, as i believe in god and that he's leading this church |
| 21:50.25 | eightyeight | again though, with a doctrine such as the proclamation on the family, the church's intent is pretty clear on their position from the past, present and future |
| 21:51.02 | goozbach | wow! these tape drive are all sorts of fubar! |
| 21:52.08 | eightyeight | unum: you know, now that i think about it, she doesn't know how to handle the media, at least yet. tonight could be a castastrophe |
| 21:52.20 | eightyeight | every interview i've seen her in, she fumbled and fumbled and fumbled |
| 21:52.38 | unum | eightyeight: ya, that's what I'm thinking, but maybe she'll pull it off yet |
| 21:52.47 | unum | goozbach: that's what tape drives do |
| 21:52.57 | JoshH | i'm sure she will show how unqualified she is in this debate, without biden seeming like he's picking on her |
| 21:52.57 | eightyeight | i just can't imagine the party sending her to the sharks without solid prepping though |
| 21:53.02 | JoshH | at least, that's what i hope |
| 21:54.03 | unum | we'll see if biden has learned when to shut up |
| 21:54.09 | eightyeight | heh |
| 21:55.11 | eightyeight | seems to be agreed that obama took the last debate |
| 21:55.19 | eightyeight | at least from what i've read |
| 21:55.34 | eightyeight | if biden takes this one, that could swing a good amount of voters |
| 21:55.58 | eightyeight | mccain would be on catch-up again |
| 21:56.49 | elg | i've only watched maybe 20 minutes of it, but from what I saw obama was taking it |
| 21:57.22 | eightyeight | so, anyone use a personal wiki? i set one up for notes and tasks and such, but other than that, it doesn't get used much |
| 21:57.27 | elg | mccain was inconsistent, lashing out with hyperbolic claims that obama refuted squarely, and mostly not focused on the issue |
| 21:57.31 | eightyeight | just curious what anyone else might use it for |
| 21:57.38 | elg | eightyeight: i set one up for my family a few weeks back |
| 21:57.48 | elg | i've used it mostly for evolving recipes |
| 21:57.53 | eightyeight | elg: what sofware did you settle on? |
| 21:57.57 | elg | instiki |
| 21:58.31 | levi | The polls aren't looking very good for McCain these days: http://electoral-vote.com/ |
| 21:58.35 | brac | [Electoral-vote.com: President, Senate, House Updated Daily] |
| 21:58.49 | vontrapp | what time is the debate tonight? |
| 21:58.53 | goozbach | eightyeight: I started taking all my personal notes in markdown format |
| 21:58.59 | goozbach | then I store them in bzr |
| 21:59.10 | goozbach | push them to my webserver when I need them to be public |
| 21:59.17 | eightyeight | goozbach: bzr, eh? tough to setup a bzr server? |
| 21:59.22 | eightyeight | that's on my to-do-list |
| 21:59.29 | goozbach | eightyeight: apt-get install openssh server |
| 21:59.34 | eightyeight | done |
| 21:59.35 | goozbach | openssh-server |
| 21:59.39 | goozbach | you're done then |
| 21:59.46 | goozbach | bzr push sftp://server/path |
| 21:59.52 | eightyeight | nice |
| 21:59.57 | goozbach | not dificult at all |
| 22:00.04 | eightyeight | i was leaning git, but maybe bzr is the path to take |
| 22:00.16 | goozbach | the sticky part is creating an apache handler which renders markdown into html |
| 22:00.24 | goozbach | put it in your web root and you can do stuff like this: |
| 22:00.27 | vontrapp | bazzr is part of openssh? |
| 22:00.32 | levi | goozbach: Can't you do that with mod_perl or something? |
| 22:00.40 | goozbach | http://blog.friocorte.com/presentation-storage/presentation/ |
| 22:00.46 | goozbach | vontrapp: nope |
| 22:00.48 | eightyeight | vontrapp: no. uses ssh for the file transfer, i'm taking it |
| 22:00.50 | goozbach | it used ssh |
| 22:00.50 | *** join/#utah Newsome (n=sorenson@dsl081-138-007.chi1.dsl.speakeasy.net) |
| 22:00.57 | goozbach | bzr is much easier to learn than git |
| 22:01.10 | goozbach | levi: it's done with a perl handler |
| 22:01.28 | eightyeight | goozbach: but you still have to setup a bzr repo on the ssh server... |
| 22:01.36 | vontrapp | <3 port forawwarding |
| 22:01.44 | goozbach | that entire /presentation-storage directory is just a bzr mirror |
| 22:01.46 | vontrapp | ~lart idterm |
| 22:01.47 | ibot | grabs a large, mis-shapened log, with squirrels, and beats idterm until only the nuts remain ... which the squirrels run off with |
| 22:01.52 | goozbach | eightyeight: bzr has to be installed on the server |
| 22:02.00 | goozbach | but no, it'll init it for you |
| 22:02.21 | eightyeight | git maintains 100% self-contained repos. same with bzr? |
| 22:02.41 | goozbach | yup |
| 22:02.43 | eightyeight | i guess that's on the client end though |
| 22:03.07 | eightyeight | what i want, is to "check in" my rc and conf files, and check them out on new installs |
| 22:03.15 | elg | goozbach: i learnt git the other day. didn't take long |
| 22:03.21 | vontrapp | wow, which version of the debate should i record? there's 1.5 hours ones, 2 hours, and 2:25 |
| 22:03.25 | elg | it's much easier now |
| 22:03.28 | eightyeight | thus, keep all the boxen up-to-date |
| 22:03.30 | goozbach | good to know |
| 22:03.43 | vontrapp | i like a darcs |
| 22:03.50 | elg | man git-tutorial |
| 22:03.53 | vontrapp | but i haven't teaken the time to learn something else |
| 22:03.55 | elg | and you're off |
| 22:04.02 | levi | I like darcs, but its star is waning. |
| 22:04.16 | elg | yup |
| 22:04.20 | goozbach | check this out if you want help doing the apache handler stuff: http://blog.friocorte.com/2008/08/multimarkdown-apache-handler.html |
| 22:04.33 | vontrapp | i think the others could pick up a few key things from darcs, though |
| 22:04.39 | elg | it's too early to tell but I think git will outshine even hg |
| 22:04.49 | goozbach | eightyeight: I have all of my important "dot files" in a bzr repo |
| 22:04.51 | levi | My bets are on git, yeah. |
| 22:05.09 | levi | It's Blessed by Linus. |
| 22:05.14 | eightyeight | heh |
| 22:05.19 | elg | :) |
| 22:05.24 | elg | thought that alone wouldn't be enough |
| 22:05.25 | goozbach | in the directory ~/projects/dotfiles/ |
| 22:05.29 | elg | wasn't enough - back when it suckd |
| 22:05.38 | goozbach | which then symlinks all the files into their proper place in ~ |
| 22:05.39 | levi | Well, it was enough for a lot of people back then. |
| 22:05.56 | eightyeight | goozbach: and /etc as well? |
| 22:05.57 | goozbach | multimarkdown is an awesome markup language |
| 22:05.57 | elg | yeah, but not enough. not enough smart people that went on to write/work on others |
| 22:05.58 | elg | like hg |
| 22:06.06 | goozbach | eightyeight: most of it. |
| 22:06.13 | levi | Fortunately, many of those people realized that it sucked and needed serious UI improvement. |
| 22:06.14 | eightyeight | nice. that's exactly what i'm after |
| 22:06.16 | goozbach | usually only when I change the defaults |
| 22:06.44 | eightyeight | gets dinner |
| 22:07.01 | elg | i'm all about quilt these days |
| 22:07.16 | elg | not as a rcs, but as a way to contribute to OSS projects in a one-off fashion |
| 22:07.33 | levi | The Linux kernel is probably one of the most contributed-to projects. By virtue of maintaining the kernel, git was destined for greatness. |
| 22:07.51 | elg | git rebase (or mercurial queues) is similar, if the project has a git/hg repository to start with |
| 22:07.59 | elg | but given just a tarball and a mailing list quilt rocks |
| 22:08.18 | levi | I'd look into it if I was planning on contributing to a project like that anytime soon. :) |
| 22:08.41 | elg | and git stash I learned about the other day is handy handy |
| 22:08.50 | elg | levi: here's the quick run down |
| 22:08.55 | elg | tar xzf foo.tar.gz; cd foo |
| 22:09.06 | elg | quilt new osx.diff |
| 22:09.17 | elg | quilt add foo.c bar.c whatever.c |
| 22:09.23 | elg | make your changes |
| 22:09.25 | elg | quilt refresh |
| 22:09.39 | elg | the patch is in patches/. you can quilt pop and quilt push |
| 22:09.39 | goozbach | quilt is pretty cool |
| 22:09.56 | elg | you have a stack of patches, so if you need to make some series of changes you can maintain them separately |
| 22:10.21 | elg | then, when a new tarball comes down, you just copy over the patches directory and push the patches, address any conflicts whatever, do a refresh |
| 22:10.53 | elg | very lightweight but very useful |
| 22:43.56 | *** join/#utah redbeard2 (n=jphall@adsl-75-13-71-2.dsl.mrdnct.sbcglobal.net) |
| 23:05.03 | *** join/#utah lakshmi (n=lakshmi@75-25-129-78.lightspeed.sjcpca.sbcglobal.net) |
| 23:19.01 | *** join/#utah Sargun (n=Sargun@atarack/staff/sargun) |
