Disqus - Latest Comments for ryan

Re: iPhone Development

ryan — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:13:21 -0000

Well, that's crappy.

Guess we'll just have to hack around it. :-)

I doubt they will be able to stop it. Hell, somebody got Linux running on iPods, right?

Re: Return of the Podcast

ryan — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:44:01 -0000

That gibberish is XML and your browser doesn't know what to do with it. Traditionally, web browsers aren't used for podcasts, audio podcast programs are (like iTunes). If you have iTunes installed, you can right click on the link, choose "Copy Link Location" (or whatever), and paste it into iTunes via the Subscribe to Podcast command.

Another option is to go here where you can access the individual programs in a blog format:

http://www.ryansutter.net/podcast

Re: The Lavone – A Concert for No-one

ryan — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:27:35 -0000

Thanks James. I've corrected the post. Much appreciated.

Ry

Re: iPhone Development

ryan — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:57:30 -0000

I agree with you that Cocoa is going to be the environment, but it won't be that difficult to keep people off the iPhone.

First, the iPhone appears to be based on the ARM processor. If Apple does not provide ARM compilation ability in XCode, developers will not be able to compile Cocoa apps for it.

Second, the iPhone has new user-interface elements that obviously make use of new software libraries. If, again, Apple does not make those libraries available, developers will not be able to develop code for the iPhone.

Third, the iPhone may be designed to only run/install applications with a certain digital signature or DRM. If Apple does not allow random third parties to sign their apps, they can prohibit them from getting apps running on the iPhone.

So, as you see, it is entirely possible for Apple to keep the phone closed and they seem to be planning to do just that.

Re: Last night

ryan — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:42:33 -0000

I think I ought to take that as a complement...

I like your point about whether or not Western religion claims to have any tools other than prayer. In all my religious reading I have discovered very few people who even seem to recognize the need for such disciplines in the Christian tradition. Alan Watts is probably the most outspoken proponent of fusing Western faith with Eastern philosophy to create a modern religious sensibility, but he is more of an anthropologist, educating Westerners on Eastern religions.

My thoughts on all of this, btw, stem from the fact that I now that I no longer believe in God I actually miss prayer. It seemed to be a good way to focus and clear my thoughts, like bouncing ideas off a friend can do but without the need of having one around. I've replaced it a bit with imagined conversations with Rhett, but it's not the same. The function prayer served has no analogs in the Christian world. The Eastern religions, however, basically give you an owners manual to your brain. They give you exercises, guidance, reports from within, all sorts of stuff to help you with the "how" of things. I think that is why so many people who lose their faith in Christianity wind up interested in Eastern religion. Christianity doesn't offer anything other than guilt, self-discipline and prayer as tools. It doesn't really claim to, as you pointed out. I don't think those are sufficient to deal with spiritual issues, even if you are a believer.

Re: Zune Sighting

ryan — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:10:34 -0000

Yeah, I noticed that. Seems kind of pointless, what they're doing, especially since I wasn't even complaining...

Ryan

Re: reads and reviews from the last 12 months…

ryan — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:01:23 -0000

I take it all back on "All Scripture". The finest summary of the Bible ever put to paper. Absolutely. Brilliant scholarship. Impeccable.

You cracked me up with Habakkuk. :-)

Re: Last night

ryan — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:55:19 -0000

You must have studied the Revelation book a lot. :-)

Prayer was always the thing I fell back on when I didn't know how to cope with what I was feeling or thinking. I prayed very sincerely from the time I was so young that it got ingrained in me, I think.

I don't miss it so much anymore, but I do remember how reassuring it was to say a prayer and think, "There, Jehovah knows what I feel. It'll be OK."

Re: Wii

ryan — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:24:13 -0000

My calculator confirms your results. Damn your cold logic.

Re: Zune Sighting

ryan — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:22:50 -0000

I decided to mark their comment as Spam. I generally believe in reciprocal linking, and they are linking to me, so I thought I'd keep 'em up, but I think that only encourages them.

Slimeballs.

Re: Can gorillas help us understand the origins of religion?

ryan — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:16:14 -0000

Spare time? What is spare time of which you speak?

Yeah, I'd love a double date. Always did want to meet this mysterious guy of yours...

When?

Oh and, Hi Sabrina!

:-)

Re: The RPM Challenge… The 19th Day

ryan — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:03:50 -0000

No, it's not a Ryan Sutter solo album although I'm writing all the material. At first I was just sick of trying to promote work under the name "Ryan Sutter" when there is already somebody out there by that name so I wanted a new name for it. However, once Bob, George, and Kevin got involved, they've added their own stylistic input to the songs and made them their own so it has truly started to become a group effort (at least for about half the tunes). The songs wind up quite different from what they would have been had I done them alone. That means Trumpet Marine is a band. I have no idea if Trumpet Marine will stay a band in the long term, but for this project it is.

BTW, it's 10 songs or 35 minutes, whichever comes first. We'll make it. No long Hummingbird noise things.

Out of curiousity, what did you think of the version of My Adventure Flowerland on Bo Redoubt?

Re: The RPM Challenge… The 19th Day

ryan — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:19:03 -0000

Yep. Guess you didn't listen past the hummingbirds...

Re: The RPM Challenge… The 19th Day

ryan — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:35:58 -0000

It is a "hidden track". Officially the album does end at the hummingbird noises. I know hidden tracks are dorky, but so am I, so...

Re: Stop the Presses! Hold the Phones! The End of the World Has Arrived!!!

ryan — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:08:56 -0000

Amen brother.

Oh, and, Anthony... what did ya think of the new album? Wanna copy?

Re: This is cool.

ryan — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:36:44 -0000

I don't think it has a purpose, no... Just one of those things, I guess.

Re: Trumpet Marine / The Substars / Jonathan Dessi-Olive @ The Acadia Cafe, June 4th 2007

ryan — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:50:57 -0000

Um, no. Minneapolis, actually. :-) I added a link.

Re: Trumpet Marine / The Substars / Jonathan Dessi-Olive @ The Acadia Cafe, June 4th 2007

ryan — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:36:28 -0000

You can request it and I can pretend I didn't hear you and play something else. It'll be fun.

Re: http://www.ryansutter.net/blog/?p=436

ryan — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:59:24 -0000

Check out this article. The #1 worst website in the world according to PC World magazine is, you guessed it, MySpace.

Re: http://ryansutter.net/wp/2007/06/25/436/

ryan — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:59:24 -0000

Check out this article. The #1 worst website in the world according to PC World magazine is, you guessed it, MySpace.

Re: Birth Survey

ryan — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:28:08 -0000

Sorry, corrected the link and the subject line. :-)

Re: Birth Survey

ryan — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:28:08 -0000

Sorry, corrected the link and the subject line. :-)

Re: Birth Survey

ryan — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:59:57 -0000

Told you I read your blog. :-)

Re: Birth Survey

ryan — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:59:57 -0000

Told you I read your blog. :-)

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

ryan — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:50:23 -0000

I added a link to the abstract of the study. Happy now? :-)

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

ryan — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:50:23 -0000

I added a link to the abstract of the study. Happy now? :-)

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

ryan — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:58:56 -0000

First, thanks for the feedback. Nice to have comments. To answer your questions:

"Isn’t it really just a means of running down an organization with which you disagree?"

No. Cognitive Dissonance theory is applicable to all sorts of decision-making processes in life. It is not a way to slander a group you disagree with, it's a process you experience internally when you are attempting to hold contradictory beliefs. It is how the mind keeps you sane(r) in that situation. The Witnesses, and all other fundamentalist religious groups, are perfect situations for creating this dissonance because their beliefs are based on, in many cases, information that has long been proven false. The Society is a personal example for me and many I know because in our cases, the attempt to hold the beliefs we learned growing up in the truth in the face of conflicting evidence in the real world did real psychological harm. I was a Witness from birth to age 30. I am now 33. I have had very little time to get over this damage, so occasionally I still write about it.

One thing I have heard over and over again, is how people felt internally fractured for their entire lives due to the stress of attempting to hold onto Witness beliefs while being aware of disconfirming information. This internal stress has often been relieved by simply being allowed to accept reality as it presents itself, instead of attempting to project a cosmic drama based on bronze-age myth upon it.

For some it is as simple as watching nature programs on television and learning to automatically screen out any references to evolution. To others it's developing the worldly/Truth split I mentioned. The fact is, that being unable to create a consistent mental model of the world you live in, being forced to divide all information and people into two camps, is psychologically damaging and stressful. Any group that causes this effect in their members, be they political, religious, or otherwise will develop in their members a strong ability to rationalize just about anything in order to reduce this internal stress. Studies have been done over and over again in a range of social situations that have found that this holds true across the world. It is the explanation for why it is so hard to admit being wrong for many, and Witnesses are among the best examples of a group that definitely believes they are not wrong.

You made remarks to the effect that I am kicking sand at the group, that the benefits out-weigh the drawbacks. To be completely honest, this is totally false. I am not writing for a Witness audience, I am writing for an audience of Witness survivors. We are the ones suffering the shunning, we are the ones who have lost all of our friends and family, we are the ones attempting to recover from the psychological damage done by being shunned, molested, falsely accused, slandered or simply being denied the opportunity to respectfully disagree with the Watchtower Society and leave on decent terms. There is no honorable way to leave the Witnesses or I and many I know would have taken it. Instead, in order to be honest people who accept reality we have been forced to be demonized in the minds and hearts of all the people we have ever held dear. We are left attempting to comfort each other and help each other find answers. That is the goal of a post such as the one here, not to assault Witnesses (my entire family remains Witnesses, my father is an elder) but to help those trying to rebuild their lives in the aftermath of the Witnesses to move on with their lives.

A question for you sir, have you ever considered that there are those who have sacrificed everything and everyone they ever knew to leave the Witnesses because they believed so strongly in honesty and integrity? Or do you actually accept the Societies claim that all former members who disagree are offering poisonous food from the table of demons? My friend, most of us are simply attempting to figure out how to be regular folks with regular lives when we've never been given the opportunity to accept basic science or connect with human civilization. It's a phenomenally difficult undertaking, gone into with no training or support, and we have to look out for each other, share our insights, and muddle along as best we can.

Thank you for visiting and feel free to comment anytime.

Ryan

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

ryan — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:58:56 -0000

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

ryan — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:09:30 -0000

Tom,

Let me first thank you for at least being courteous and civil. Believe it or not, that rarely happens. I have had people I've known for 20 years run from me, refuse to speak to my at my own brothers funeral, and accuse me of being a "nuclear bomb" to their faith, simply because I hold alternate views. I personally find that compassion and fellow-feeling mean that we should all be willing to agree to disagree without demonization. I do not, and never will, demonize my family and friends and former brothers. They're good people, and I extend this to you as a former brother of mine as well. What I believe is not that Witnesses are bad, but that they are misinformed or uninformed.

For example, you mentioned that you have found the evidence for evolution to exist but to be inconclusive or unconvincing. This statement made sense before the advent of DNA analysis, but no longer. If you are truly open-minded, you need to familiarize yourself with the progress that has been made in reconstructing the history of life on this planet based on a synthesis of genetic analysis and the fossil record. Where the fossil record suggests evolution but does conclusively establish it, the entire evolutionary history of every living thing on this planet is carried within their DNA. An endogenous retrovirus infected the reproductive cells of a human ancestor, for example, and left it's unique imprint on all the subsequent DNA of all of us... and chimps. This sort of thing, retroviral insertions in non-coding DNA that are shared between two species can only be explained by common ancestry. This is just one example of literally hundreds of "smoking guns" that have been documented and continue to be documented as the DNA of the earth's species is sequenced and mapped and compared to reconstruct the way the tree of life unfolded. Most amazing is that bio-diversity (the geographical distribution of animals on this planet), the fossil record, DNA analysis, and genetics can all be used in concert as separate strands in the thread to absolutely demonstrate precisely what happened, how it happened, when it happened and why it happened. 35 years ago, this was not the case, but today it is. The information is available at your local library, if you but look.

I am quite familiar with both the original Evolution book from the Society and the 1985 Creation book and the Creator book, and even writings from Pastor Russell regarding evolution in Studies on the Scriptures. Not only have I read all these publications, but I have read many of their primary sources, including The Genesis Flood, The Neck of the Giraffe, Darwin's Black Box... I have a library filled with these texts. What these books DON'T tell you when supposedly presenting the evidence for evolution could, and does, fill whole libraries. With the current pace of learning, to learn what you know about evolution from 35 year old school textbooks and Watchtower Society literature is to learn nothing whatsoever of the subject. It is as if you learned everything you know about electronics from a book published in 1830 and an Amish farmer, both of whom might deal with the subject but radically misinform.

An additional statement you made on the subject of why bad things happen to good people:

"On becoming a JW, I was really impressed by the Bible’s explanation. It’s intellectually satisfying and internally consistent."

This is something I have long believed as well, but no longer do. I will share my reasons for this. I will summarize, first, what I believe you are referring to. You are discussing the Universal Court Case defense for the problem of evil, which goes something like this:

Adam and Eve, created perfect and undying, brought death and sin into the world by eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. At this point, God had a choice: wipe them out and start over OR allow them and their descendants to reap the results of their actions. This event raised the question in the minds of all the angels present as to whether they should all follow God's ways or not. In order to conclusively prove that those who follow his ways will meet with misery and unhappiness, and thereby vindicate his Sovereignty, He allowed mankind to carry on, provided Jesus for a ransom and will make it all OK in the end.

There is, sadly, a number of flaws in this argument. First, the Genesis account doesn't actually say any of this stuff. It never says Adam and Eve were created to live forever, for one thing. In fact, one detail in the story appears to indicate the opposite, that they were created mortal. For, if Adam and Eve were designed never to die, WHY WOULD GOD BOTHER TO PLANT A TREE OF LIFE? The Tree of Life, remember, was not off-limits. It was included with all the trees from which they could eat. In fact, Eating of that tree would have granted them immortality EVEN AFTER THEY ATE FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. Genesis 3:22-24:

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Reading the Bible account, it appears that death didn't enter the world through sin but rather as a deliberate punishment from God. He cut humans off from life through deliberate action, i.e. - we weren't made to live forever, we were made mortal and given some special fruit that would have allowed us to live forever but Jehovah never allowed it to happen.

This raises the question of why? Was it because a universal issue had been raised? Again, there is nothing like that in the passage. In fact, there is not even an identification of the serpent as The Devil. No, read it carefully. The serpent here tells the truth. What does he say exactly?

"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

What does God himself say happened?

"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

The serpent said they wouldn't die but would become like God in knowing good and evil. They didn't die and God himself admitted that they indeed became like him, knowing good and evil. Had they been created immortal, the "they began to die" explanation would make sense, but nothing in the text suggests that they were and the Tree of Life makes no sense otherwise. The only remaining explanation for the story is that God in the story told them they would die to discourage them becoming like him. He didn't want humans to be like gods. This explanation, which involves dishonesty on the part of God, is shocking to Christians but is precisely how early Hebrews understood this text.

But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the Christian reading of this passage had merit, and the Tree of Life is just sort of a weird thing we can ignore and the serpent really was the Devil and all the later stuff in the Bible can be retroactively projected on this account. It still doesn't make sense. Why not? Because the big question raised by Adam and Eve in particular would not have been "can man get along without God" but "can perfect humans get along without God'? Don't forget, according to your theory they became imperfect as soon as they sinned. They passed the imperfection on down, like a dented cake pan. This means that their DNA was physically altered by God to introduce cell-death and aging and the like. Does this not rig the game rather dramatically? The test was about obedience from "perfect" humans, not obedience from intentionally flawed humans. All of human history, all the pain and suffering and death, does nothing to answer the question about whether or not mankind would have needed to follow God had they stayed in their created state. Mankind was created perfect, then crippled, and it was the perfect ones that raised the issue but the crippled ones being tested. It's like testing whether or not an elite sprinter can run a 10-second 100 meters but slashing his achilles tendon first.

An additional flaw in the argument is God's subsequent involvement in human affairs. If mankind was to be given a chance to prove whether they could get along without him, then he would have to LEAVE THEM ALONE, but the Bible says he didn't. In the Bible, he picks sides, plays favorites, kills, elevates, gives privileged information to small groups... in short, he never allows the issue to be tested because he never lets mankind go about their business unhindered. Again, bringing back our sprinter, let's say we cut his tendon AND made him carry us on his back while we gave him directions.

A few more points. This is not "the Bible's" explanation. It is the Society's version of one of many theoretical solutions to the problem of evil that various people have managed to wring out of the Bible over the millennia. Also, the historicity (or lack thereof) of the story can be established simply by tracing the roots of the story to it's pre-Hebrew origins in Sumerian literature thousands of years before the Bible was written. Last but not least, evidence of mankind's antiquity is far older even then Sumer and this story. To sum up, if the account were true, your explanation wouldn't actually make sense when all the details are brought to bear, AND if your explanation were true, God would be violating the terms of it by his own actions in the remainder of the Bible, but in the final analysis, neither the explanation nor the story are based on reality, but on a Hebraic adaptation of a Sumerian myth that was intended to explain why snakes lack legs, why childbirth hurts, and why we're so different than the animals and so like the Gods we worship.

I do not find that intellectually satisfying myself. And as you can probably tell, I've given it a lot of thought.

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

ryan — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:09:30 -0000

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

ryan — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:12:50 -0000

David,

Thank you for the clarification. At the time I initially wrote the post I was going off the top of my head, from my memory on the bus and had not yet read the study. Your analysis/correction, is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Ryan

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

ryan — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:12:50 -0000

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

ryan — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:59:33 -0000

Ditto to basically everything that Jennifer said. :-) Allow me to add too that I believe the group with the strongest claim to unity, world peace and a satisfying answer to the problem of human suffering and death is the Buddhists. I don't think it's much of a coincidence that many XJW's turn to Buddhism.

Now, about this claim that evolution is so unlikely. I understand, Tom, that you believe this to be the case and that you could in all likelihood drag out a bunch of quotes from a bunch of "authorities" claiming as much. However, I want to get more specific. What part of evolution do you believe is unlikely? When I mentioned the DNA evidence your response was basically to malign the honesty and integrity of all biological scientists. Except, of course, "guys like Behe, guys who have some credentials". Michael Behe does have credentials, yes, but nothing different than every other professional microbiologist in the world. Why would you accept his views and reject the views of his entire peer group? Nearly 100% of his colleagues disagree with his assertions about irreducible complexity and every example of IC that he has ever asserted to be proof of intelligent design has already been explained via natural selection, including the bacterial flagellum and the clotting sequence. You're cherry-picking the one guy who says what you want to hear and saying, in essence, "when somebody like him is convinced, well then, we'll see". I would like, then, to point out the things he is convinced of that you personally would reject.

From his book Darwin's Black Box:

"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) to be fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism - natural selection working on variation - might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life."

Let's analyze that closely. What, exactly, does Behe object to? He doesn't believe that natural selection explains everything at the molecular level. That's all. Fundamentally, that's the only claim he's making. He accepts that all living things are descended from a single common ancestor via natural selection over the course of billions of years. So, Behe already agrees with evolution in the main. As a Witness we were taught that it was OK that the universe was billions of years old, but two things we were not allowed to believe: one, that all living things (including man) are descended from a common ancestor and two, that the history of LIFE (not the planet, but life on it) is billions of years old with the history of man being millions of years since our divergence from our last common ancestor with chimpanzees. Tom, no doubt as one of Jehovah's Witnesses you believe that mankind is approximately 6,000 years old as a species and you believe that the living things we see today are all members of separately created "kinds". Behe would disagree with both of these beliefs, as would every single reputable scientist in the world. By Witness standards, Behe is an evolutionist, just a theistic one. He believes he can demonstrate certain problems at the molecular level of biology that could not be solved via natural selection and would have required intelligent intervention to solve, but he's still an evolutionist.

Now, about your claims of astronomical improbability. Evolution in the sense of common descent with modification via DNA is not improbable. It's a measurable predictable on-going observable process. But, there is a second subject which is where all the improbability claims come in... the generation of life from non-life. This is NOT evolution. Let me repeat that... THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION. Everything in the theory of evolution (common descent via natural selection) would hold true if life was initially created by God, aliens, or chemistry. And, the odds there are not nearly as long-shot as people think. To explain...

The calculations of odds that the Creation book uses are based on the generation of a simple cell (DNA, nucleus, cell wall, etc) from basic chemistry. Let's state right here that to find a bio-chemist or microbiologist who believes that such a thing is possible or that this is what happened you will need a time machine. Nobody believes this any more. Even the most basic cell is a highly-evolved thing. The jump from non-life to life had to have happened the same way everything else did, via chemistry and graduating events. I personally find the RNA world hypothesis the most convincing because it also explains viruses, which are sort of half-alive, and it doesn't really require any massively astronomical odds.

So, I'll ask you. Which part of the whole thing is so impossible? Common descent? Natural selection? Abiogenesis? I don't find any of these things to be particularly hard to believe if one has a proper understanding of what they entail and a current education in what science has discovered relevant to each.

One additional point, as a Witness I too found that maligning scientists as a bunch of God-dishonoring atheists was an easy explanation for how out of sync they are with what the Bible claims. However, the truth is that they are among the most honest and rigorous and diligent people on our planet and deserve more respect than that. It's a logical fallacy to attack the messenger if you don't like the message.

If you would like to see how a very theistic and highly trained scientist reconciles the book of Genesis with modern discoveries, I suggest you read the work of Kenneth Miller, a highly-trained, highly-credentialed, and highly religious theist who happens to also be a biology professor and author of the book "Finding Darwin's God" in which he shows that evolution is not in conflict with religious faith. The supposed atheistic nature of evolutionary biology is a a logical fallacy. The truth is that the two subjects are not connected. Evolution with abiogenesis provides an explanation for life that does not require the intervention or existence of a God, however, it does not exclude it either.

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

ryan — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:59:33 -0000

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

ryan — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:23:59 -0000

Well, Tom, I never really thought agreement was likely, and it looks like I was right. The examples you've given about scientists being wrong are good because they point out the specific and powerful advantage science has over tradition, science is not a thing, it's a process. Theories are put forward and tested skeptically over and over. When they fail the test, they are discarded. You could name a million discarded theories and initially heckled ideas and you would simply be proving the point. I don't put my trust in scientists or specific scientific claims, but I do believe in the process because of it's self-correcting nature. What's best about the scientific process is that scientists LOVE to prove each other wrong. They don't accept some holy mainstream writ and stick with it, they test each other and test each other and make their name by staking out new territory and proving the old guys wrong. You act like they made a saint of Darwin. Well, don't you think that the guy who proved Darwin wrong would make an even bigger name for himself? It would be huge, like Einstein proving Newton wrong with Relativity. Your characterizations of scientists are simply false. Scientists from all walks of life and religious backgrounds, in all countries of the globe, have been testing evolutionary theory for over 150 years and rather than being discarded, it has been confirmed over and over and over and over and over as the only known explanation that fits all the facts. Theists, Buddhists, Atheists, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Taoists... doesn't matter, if they use the scientific method and they put the theory of evolution to the test, they find it fits. Various ideas have been tested and discarded (Lamarkianism for example was tested and found wrong) but the core tenet, common descent with modification via natural selection, has withstood a century and a half of abuse and advances by thousands of honest, hard-working people who would advance themselves immensely by being the one to find it false. In the eyes of professional biologists the world over, it's the fundamental unifying principle of all the day to day work they do, as difficult to work without as gravity would be to an astrophysicist. I'm sorry you don't like the idea of common descent, but it's fact, it's confirmed by your DNA, and somehow you're going to have to make peace with it someday.

On your final point, I understand the attraction to the JW's. Being raised as one, I enjoyed the spiritual fellowship and the rest. I found the answers gratifying to have. I never intended to leave. I only left because I found out the answers were false. That's all. They would have been awesome if true, but, they weren't.

After leaving and doing a lot of searching I've found out something I never knew before... answers far more gratifying that also have the benefit of being based on reality instead of a book. I don't have to deny my DNA in order to find spiritual happiness, live a moral life, and understand the cause of suffering and pain. I don't have to view my fellowman as "worldly" or have an ancient book explained to me by some people I've never met in New York who claim to be the only ones who really understand it. I have learned to accept life as it is, to be happy in doing so, raise my child in a moral way, have compassion for everybody and to stand for something different than today's ever-declining standards.

The real question, Tom, is simple. If the whole Universal Court Case and Armageddon and all of it is just a story, a darn good one that seems to make sense, but just a story after all... do you really want to live and die waiting for a deliverance that will never show up? I mean, sure, the people are nice, but what, hypothetically, if the whole thing is really just a story, as I am convinced it is on the basis of many many many lines of evidence? Is that a trade off you're willing to make? If so, the Witnesses are a wonderful religion to be a member of. I do not try to get my father or brother or sister to leave because they are happy there. I do not believe for one second that the end they are expecting is based on reality or will ever happen, but they are happy and that is enough for me. If it's enough for you, then please go in peace, I support you as a Witness 100%. The only thing I would ever wish changed with the Witnesses is that they don't demonize former members who simply think they are mistaken. I can't pretend to believe something once I know why it's wrong and I can't claim to be a proponent of truth and honesty while being a hypocrite, so I had to leave. I don't deserve to be shunned for that. I find the lack of respectable disagreement the only real black mark on the Witnesses but if it helps you to believe what they teach and it makes you happy, enjoy sir.

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

ryan — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:23:59 -0000

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

ryan — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:35:38 -0000

David,

Sorry I missed your second post until now... I just read it.

I have found this entire conversation to be very interesting, although I'm fairly certain that a lot of what we've been talking about is not precisely the actual subject of CD.

One of the reasons I was so interested in the topic when I listened to Dr. Aronson on Science Friday was because of having read his previous book on Propaganda. I have yet to read "Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)", the book that started this conversation, but his previous book was powerful not because it touted a bunch of theories, but because he had the experimental evidence to back it up. In the case of propaganda, he wrote extensively about experiments that had been performed to attempt to determine exactly how it was that people were convinced/coerced into doing things they never would have wanted to do in the first place. In controlled conditions, they were able to discover behavior patterns that were surprisingly consistent. I think I gave more weight to his discussion on the radio because I knew that he had previously made use of a fairly rigorous experimental methodology to reach his conclusions, not just making blanket statements from the hip.

An example (from memory). He discussed an experiment in which random strangers were brought together in a room and assigned to a group at random, say the orange group and the green group. The people were allowed to mingle and socialize and then they were interviewed about their perceptions of the other people. The finding was that people were far more likely to say good things and have good feelings about others who were assigned to the same random group. The sense of shared membership in a group, no matter how arbitrary, had a psychological impact on perception of other people. Kurt Vonnegut called this a granfalloon, and discussed it in a few books. Marketers and religious leaders and politicians are well aware of this effect/tendency/etc. It's not a 100% thing, but if you want to galvanize people to your way of thinking, it's remarkably powerful. Heck, even the bag of sunflower seeds I have here attempts to make me feel like I'm part of some special group of sunflower seed eaters with the text:

"Congratulations! You're a seeder! Seeders are unique. They're cool, confident, independent, active, and hard working."

I mean, how silly is that? I like sunflower seeds so now I'm part of a unique, cool, confident, independent, active and hard working group? This is an example of a marketing department attempting to pull two known levers in the human psyche: people like to belong to a group and people like to have their egos stroked.

The presence of cognitive dissonance in the minds of people is a reality for many people, probably not for everybody, just as pleasant (but irrational) feelings related to group membership are a reality for many. There are many more levers in the human mind and the people with a keen understanding of them can get people "en masse" to do what they want. They'll buy products they don't need, vote for people they shouldn't, work jobs they hate, destroy themselves and others in the name of religion, all sorts of stuff. Knowing the tricks, knowing exactly how a message has been crafted to manipulate the hearer into agreement, is something that can help one avoid being manipulable.

I guess my point is that the Witnesses, while not unique in doing so, are quite skilled at knowing how to psychologically manipulate people. Of the world's religions, they are one of the best, although they all do it to an extent. They define an in-group and out-group, creating a granfalloon. They provide strong rationalizations and apologetics to reduce dissonance while also providing regular opportunities for use of those rationalizations, which helps enforce commitment. They hold out a golden paradise and a scary alternative that helps make sure that alternatives are not seriously considered. CD is only a part of it and for some of us it was a major part of our Witness experience. For others, probably not so much, still I think this whole area of psychology/sociology, all the aspects of the psychology of persuasion, are worth the time and attention of anybody who was or is a Witness.

Re: Cognitive Dissonance

ryan — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:35:38 -0000

Re: Second Quote of the Day…

ryan — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:55:40 -0000

It's a Pinky and the Brain thing... But what it means and why you need it? No clue...

Re: Second Quote of the Day…

ryan — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:55:40 -0000

It's a Pinky and the Brain thing... But what it means and why you need it? No clue...

Re: I guess…

ryan — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:29:48 -0000

Well, der, obviously... See, the number of pyramid inches from the base of the spot where they found Tut's sarcophagus to the tip of the nose of the Sphinx (as it would have been before it fell off) happens to be exactly equivalent to my Social Security Number in reverse when rendered in Base-16. This signifies me as the chosen one for this age, the FBI knows that, and therefore they have hired the aliens (the Grays of course) to listen to my conversations by hiding tiny microphones among my hair follicles. The only way to defeat this clever ploy and continue my work unmolested and unhindered is to wear a tinfoil hat. I didn't think this kind of thing needed explaining, it's so clear...

Re: I guess…

ryan — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:29:48 -0000

Re: Syd Speaks Up On Religion…

ryan — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:09:01 -0000

These are comments that Syd is making to his mother privately. Considering her harsh views on organized religion, he probably assumes she's in agreement. I have repeatedly stressed to him that it is impolite and inappropriate to rip on the beliefs of other people or say anti-religious things in front of other people. I have never seen him do any such thing, either. In front of believers he is always very respectful, as he should be. It seems, however, that she is more upset about him having the opinions in the first place than anything else, which I think is incorrect on her part.

Re: Syd Speaks Up On Religion…

ryan — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:09:01 -0000

Re: current thoughts

ryan — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:56:48 -0000

More. :-) Sorry, there may be JW's reading so I ain't namin' names... but you two can guess.

Re: current thoughts

ryan — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:56:48 -0000

More. :-) Sorry, there may be JW's reading so I ain't namin' names... but you two can guess.

Re: Syd Speaks Up On Religion…

ryan — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:19:00 -0000

Hey Mary,

Of course I love ya, and I'm glad you spoke your mind. Like I've said over and over, love and compassion for other people, regardless of their religious beliefs. Love is my religion.

I'm glad you can think of God in such glowing terms. I know that religious people always say that he's the ultimate superlative good, but I personally can't square that with the character described in the Old Testament (that's where my "xenophobic psychopath with low self-esteem" comes in... xenophobic because he seems to despise all nations except Israel, psychopathic because he repeatedly kills people with no remorse and low self-esteem because he seems to require so much worship from people and nobody who is secure in themselves needs people to worship them). I don't care how many nice things you say about a mass-murderer, he's still a mass-murderer...

Hopefully, though, those stories aren't true and there really is a nice God and he's everything you need him to be. I'd like that for you and I'd never tell you not to believe in Him if it works for you.

Ryan

Re: Syd Speaks Up On Religion…

ryan — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:19:00 -0000

Re: current thoughts

ryan — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:47:23 -0000

My new album title will be:

Blasko, Astleford, Sutter and Zimmerman present: "Songs by The BAStardZ"

Re: current thoughts

ryan — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:47:23 -0000

My new album title will be:

Blasko, Astleford, Sutter and Zimmerman present: "Songs by The BAStardZ"

Re: current thoughts

ryan — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:53:14 -0000

Evan? Um.... no. :-) Nice try though Stace... Something tells me that if I were to hang out with Evan his mom would probably shoot me dead in cold blood while whistling Copacabana...

Re: current thoughts

ryan — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:53:14 -0000

Evan? Um.... no. :-) Nice try though Stace... Something tells me that if I were to hang out with Evan his mom would probably shoot me dead in cold blood while whistling Copacabana...

Re: The Internet vs. The Watchtower

ryan — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:53:00 -0000

Interesting... I guess I'm not all that surprised to see them attempting to align more closely with the more powerful conservative religious elements in an attempt to try to take a few of their adherents for themselves.

You know, I wish there was still a way to receive the "mags" via subscription. I would like to monitor what happens next.... Maybe somebody out there will scan them to PDF and make them available via the Interwebs...

Re: The Internet vs. The Watchtower

ryan — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:53:00 -0000

Re: current thoughts

ryan — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:34:52 -0000

Confession time... I came up with the list of captcha words. Flerm is a word I invented that even had a meaning at some point but I forgot what it was... Now that I know that somebody is entertained by the words, I will be sorely tempted to add to and alter them for no reason but entertainment... Thanks a lot, as if I didn't have enough to do. :-)

Re: current thoughts

ryan — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:34:52 -0000

Re: NaNoWriMo Update

ryan — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:36:01 -0000

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I may share some of it with somebody at some point. Maybe. But only if I like it.

So far I do so I'll tell you the title... it's called "Trajectory".

Re: NaNoWriMo Update

ryan — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:36:01 -0000

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I may share some of it with somebody at some point. Maybe. But only if I like it.

So far I do so I'll tell you the title... it's called "Trajectory".

Re: Catchin’ Up

ryan — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:51:43 -0000

I don't think so. I think the goal is to complete a novel and the word count part is basically a minimum threshold for what constitutes novel-length.

To my mind, if I don't finish the telling of the story I still haven't finished writing a novel so I better get cracking...

Re: Catchin’ Up

ryan — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:51:43 -0000

Re: Backtracking….

ryan — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:16:23 -0000

No, I couldn't because I couldn't get my head around the behaviors of the characters once their motivations changed. It caused entire scenes to have to be entirely reworked so that they had different outcomes which caused the following scenes to be, well, different scenes. The wrinkles in the story were stopping me from moving forward because I couldn't figure out what would happen next without understanding why certain characters were doing certain things and once I figured that out it gave me the rest of the story but only if I tweaked some things.

I don't know if that makes sense, but I'll definitely make my deadline so I knew it would be OK. :-)

Re: Backtracking….

ryan — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:16:23 -0000

Re: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Blog

ryan — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:35:29 -0000

Nice burn... for a Canadian!

Re: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Blog

ryan — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:35:29 -0000

Nice burn... for a Canadian!

Re: MySpace?

ryan — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:08:54 -0000

I am too Iffer, I am too... :-)

Re: MySpace?

ryan — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:08:54 -0000

I am too Iffer, I am too... :-)

Re: Interesting Things of the Day – 1/14/08

ryan — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:05:29 -0000

It might have the unfortunate side effect of discouraging generations of future Olympians...

Re: Interesting Things of the Day - 1/14/08

ryan — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:05:29 -0000

It might have the unfortunate side effect of discouraging generations of future Olympians...

Re: Interesting Things of the Day – 1/14/08

ryan — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:51:46 -0000

You're welcome. I think XKCD is about as good as it gets, personally. The perfect mix of geeky and human.

Re: Interesting Things of the Day - 1/14/08

ryan — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:51:46 -0000

You're welcome. I think XKCD is about as good as it gets, personally. The perfect mix of geeky and human.

Re: Interesting Links for The Day

ryan — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:24:22 -0000

You're welcome! That cracked me up big time... subtext is such a dirty word...

Re: Interesting Links for The Day

ryan — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:24:22 -0000

You're welcome! That cracked me up big time... subtext is such a dirty word...

Re: Last day before RPM

ryan — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:56:02 -0000

Really? What? When?

Re: Last day before RPM

ryan — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:56:02 -0000

Really? What? When?

Re: Yesterday’s Interesting Links, Posted Today

ryan — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:57:00 -0000

Well, I'm glad to see you're finally starting to come around to reality David.

Re: Yesterday’s Interesting Links, Posted Today

ryan — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:57:00 -0000

Well, I'm glad to see you're finally starting to come around to reality David.

Re: Atheist Tabernacle Choir

ryan — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:42:43 -0000

I'm not anti-religion or anti-God.

A) There are religions that are useful, even religions that don't require belief in the supernatural so to damn them all would be the same as to damn all automobiles because you don't like Fords.

B) I can't be against something that I do not believe exists. There are certain ideas of god that are not contrary to the laws of physics or perceived reality. I have no problem with them, although I don't embrace them actively. Then there are ideas of God (sorry, but the Judeo-Christian mythology of Jehovah and Jesus fits in this category) that can be rationally proven to be fiction and I can't be against a fictional character. I'm not against Huck Finn, Sherlock Holmes, Odin, Zeus or Homer Simpson. I understand them to be fictional characters. That is precisely my relationship to he Hebrew God and to Jesus Christ. I may respect certain of their stories and not respect others quite so much (especially the violence, cruelty and evil done in the Bible in the name of Jehovah), but I am not against the characters themselves. That is simply nonsensical.

I should point out that I don't expect you to agree with me, obviously. We disagree on the question of whether the supernatural exists and it leads you to believe that demons, gods, and giants are real while I consider them to be mythology. I only say all this to correct the common misunderstand of atheists that they are against God. They're not, anymore than you're against Cinderella. They simply consider him to be a figment of the imaginations of believers, poets and storytellers.

And yes, this was supposed to be funny. :-)

Re: Atheist Tabernacle Choir

ryan — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:42:43 -0000

Re: RPM Video Blog – It Starts…

ryan — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:18:44 -0000

Definitely. We'll visit one of these days!

Re: RPM Video Blog - It Starts…

ryan — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:18:44 -0000

Definitely. We'll visit one of these days!

Re: RPM08 Video Blog – Day 3: Shameful

ryan — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:33:10 -0000

I have to agree with James that as music videos go it was pretty lame... on the other hand, I'm going to defend myself by pleading that it's documentary filmmaking, not music video making. :-) Plus if you could have seen inside my head while I was listening than you would have a different opinion! Whoa...

And yes, Liberty, my chin whiskers were inhibiting my chi. So was the hair on my head so I shaved it all off on the evening of the first day of the challenge. Now it's all flowin'...

Re: RPM08 Video Blog - Day 3: Shameful

ryan — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:33:10 -0000

Re: RPM08 Video Blog – Day 3: Shameful

ryan — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:24:34 -0000

Just no pleasin' some people...

Re: RPM08 Video Blog - Day 3: Shameful

ryan — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:24:34 -0000

Just no pleasin' some people...

Re: RPM Video Blog – Day 1: Lunchtime

ryan — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:10:19 -0000

It's the cafeteria. My actual desk is in a much quieter space. But, yeah, it's that loud.

Re: RPM Video Blog - Day 1: Lunchtime

ryan — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:10:19 -0000

It's the cafeteria. My actual desk is in a much quieter space. But, yeah, it's that loud.

Re: RPM Video Blog – Day 6: Update

ryan — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:46:11 -0000

Yeah, that was intentional. ;-)

Re: RPM Video Blog - Day 6: Update

ryan — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:46:11 -0000

Yeah, that was intentional. ;-)

Re: “I don’t want a man that’s going to use the Koran to be sworn in as President instead of the Bible.”

ryan — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:59:38 -0000

I'd like to think so, but this weekend on the way to and from Duluth, stopping in little restaurants and bars and watching people, I saw almost nothing but people like these ladies here. It's us city folks who are insulated from the fact that a large percentage of the country still thinks like this. They're on farms and in cafes all over the country, especially in the south and the mid-west. Hell, these people are what most of my mom's family sounds like, including my mom.

Re: “I don’t want a man that’s going to use the Koran to be sworn in as President instead of the Bible.”

ryan — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:59:38 -0000

Re: Cat vs. Raccoon

ryan — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:14:17 -0000

Nobody made you watch it. :-)

Re: Cat vs. Raccoon

ryan — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:14:17 -0000

Nobody made you watch it. :-)

Re: myhowthingschange

ryan — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:55:48 -0000

Good point, yes, I did transfer my old LJ stuff over here and that is not immediately apparent to somebody reading this site that some of the content is referring to things that have changed somewhat. I realize that and wouldn't expect somebody to know that. Still, I don't think I've actually turned against the core sentiment of the quote, which is that I am not going to make it my lifes mission to destroy the Watchtower and I have nothing personal against the men and women and children within the Watchtower Society. If anything, I just wish there was a way to make them see the truth about the fantasy world they're living in, but there isn't and it's really not my job to help those who won't help themselves.

Re: myhowthingschange

ryan — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:55:48 -0000

Re: myhowthingschange

ryan — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:18:15 -0000

Jennifer, marvelously well written comment. :-) I think it's really interesting what you mentioned about how they are so limited in their imaginations about life outside the WTS. They really don't think that XJW's seek each other out for support? I hadn't really thought about it that way before, but I'm sure you're right. They just assume that we continue to judge each other the way they judge us.

BTW, based on the logic in your comment I will always be a couple of years badder than you. Nyah nyah!

And James, I was just rereading what you said earlier and I found myself laughing out loud at the "too smart" to be Witness. That's a reason for leaving that I can get behind! :-) Anything that can only be believed by stupid people is probably not true...

Re: myhowthingschange

ryan — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:18:15 -0000

Re: myhowthingschange

ryan — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:36 -0000

"“Free thinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking;” Tolstoy

Who is Ryan Sutter?

Evidentially not a free thinker… So, who are you following?"

This quote from Tolstoy is precisely descriptive of me. I used my mind without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clashed with my customs, privileges and beliefs back in 2004 and in so doing I discovered that the customs, privileges and beliefs I had adhered to for my entire life were wrong. Rather than succumbing to the panic induced by this painful, awful, soul-wrenching realization and going back in my shell, being a hypocrite and playing along with the WTS to retain my life, I continued to question everything without prejudice and wound up completely reforming every thing I believed. I continue to do this on a daily, weekly, monthly, hourly basis. If this is not the definition of a freethinker, I don't know what it could be. Who do I follow? Nobody. Who am I allied with? The people that I care about, my wife, my son.

MyHowThingsChange, I would like to thank you for providing an object lesson in exactly why I would never want to be a blindly following sheep in a centrally controlled religion ever again. You lurk, anonymously, because you know you're not supposed to be here. You attempt to pass judgment without knowing anything you're talking about, with no involvement in my life or what I've gone through. You smugly think you've made some sort of point against me with your Tolstoy quote when you've exactly supported my position. And one has to wonder, what you get out of this? Have you ever lost every one and every thing you've ever loved and had to restart your life from scratch in fear and anguish? Have you been shunned at your own brothers funeral by people you've known for decades? Have you had to deal with hateful slander, malicious gossip, idle rumors and direct psychological torment from people you love while still attempting to maintain your own belief in the decency and humanity of your fellow people? In short, have you ever truly suffered for The Truth?

Because I have. That's been my life for the last four years. And it's not just me. You, within your judgmental sphere of the Witnesses, appear to have no idea, not an inkling of a clue, of what it's like to deal with the discovery that you're entire life is based on false pretenses and that you can either be honest about it or you can squash the knowledge down in the name of "faith" to save your sanity. Well, there are thousands of us, tens of thousands, maybe millions, who have had to make that choice. Truth or Faith, the lives we love or the unknown harshness of reality. We're freethinkers. Whoever gives their liberty of mind and conscience over to another man or an organization or an archaic book, who calls themselves a sheep and is afraid to even say who they are, that person is in no position to pass judgment on anyone and really needs to take a hard look in the mirror at who they are, what they're doing and why they are afraid to face reality.

And about those True Colors. James and Jennifer have shown themselves to be noble, moral, honest, brave, and loving despite being persecuted by Witnesses for their beliefs. I'm proud to be their friend, proud of who they are, and the only True Colors on display on this web page that anybody should be ashamed of are your own.

Re: myhowthingschange

ryan — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:36 -0000

Re: RPM Video Blog – Day 20

ryan — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:51:03 -0000

I didn't go to Guitar Center, I went to The Podium instead. I was thinking Guitar Center, not because I like the store but because they have a large selection of acoustic guitars. I have been checking out the guitars at Music-Go-Round for some time and have not found an acoustic I like (they hardly have any). At The Podium I found a great acoustic, a Martin in fact, and I love it. :-)

Re: RPM Video Blog - Day 20

ryan — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:51:03 -0000

Re: RPM Video Blog – Day 20

ryan — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:45:59 -0000

BTW, since when have you been a regular at Guitar Center? You don't even play an instrument...

Re: RPM Video Blog - Day 20

ryan — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:45:59 -0000

BTW, since when have you been a regular at Guitar Center? You don't even play an instrument...

Re: RPM Video Blog – Day 20

ryan — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:13:50 -0000

I've never seen a Guitar Center commercial. Strangely, I've almost never bought anything from them either. I shop at MGR usually. It seems that every time I go into Guitar Center I fail to find what I want.

When I bought $440 worth of drum upgrades last year, I went to Ellis. When I bought almost every piece of gear I own, I went to eBay or Music Go Round and when I bought my Martin I went to The Podium. Talk about your missed opportunities for Guitar Center...

Re: RPM Video Blog - Day 20

ryan — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:13:50 -0000

Re: myhowthingschange

ryan — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:16:31 -0000

True. I sympathize for the guy/gal, but to say that your character has been tainted and defamed, that just ain't right. I won't let something like that go unchallenged in my own forum.

Re: myhowthingschange

ryan — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:16:31 -0000

True. I sympathize for the guy/gal, but to say that your character has been tainted and defamed, that just ain't right. I won't let something like that go unchallenged in my own forum.

Re: Obama

ryan — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:18:42 -0000

Casey,

I have that same fear in mind. Part of me worries that if Obama chooses a white man for his VP running mate that some racist SOB will assassinate him if he wins the election just to put a white man in charge. There are people that evil and guys like Obama bring them out.

I certainly hope Secret Service is up to the challenge of protecting the man. If he wins, I'll be nervous for his safety...

Re: Obama

ryan — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:18:42 -0000

Re: myhowthingschange

ryan — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:19:46 -0000

Thanks Stephen. It's appreciated. I still think of you and I hope you're doing well my friend. Take care.

Re: myhowthingschange

ryan — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:19:46 -0000

Thanks Stephen. It's appreciated. I still think of you and I hope you're doing well my friend. Take care.

Re: myhowthingschange

ryan — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:20:40 -0000

Nice to meet you Casey! Thanks for posting!

Re: myhowthingschange

ryan — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:20:40 -0000

Nice to meet you Casey! Thanks for posting!

Re: The Internet vs. The Watchtower

ryan — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:49:40 -0000

Thank you Al for the enlightening, intelligent and interesting comment. I especially appreciate the confirmation from a such a reasonable Witness as yourself that I am not an apostate after all, since I have never had any physical contact whatsoever with the testicular area of Equus Asinus. Neither am I bitter, a moron, or lacking a life. I have a very full, interesting, enriching life, a loving wife, an intelligent and kind child, dear friends, hobbies, music, creative pursuits, a satisfying job, a rich spiritual practice and a positive outlook on life. My major regret is that the religion I was formerly a part of has forbidden my family from taking part in that life and has even encouraged them to believe that as a former JW I am a "bitter moron apostate" when nothing could be further from the truth. I do miss them terribly, as I"m sure you would your family in the same situation, and I am not happy with the people who tell them that a difference in belief requires the end of a loving relationship. Reasonable people the world over can agree to disagree.

Please feel free to stop by and enlighten us all with your insights again.

Thanks!

Ryan

Re: The Internet vs. The Watchtower

ryan — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:49:40 -0000

Re: Expelled – The Movie

ryan — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:29:41 -0000

There are those who contend that the earth is flat and they are not given time in the science classroom. There are those that contend that the Holocaust never happened and they are not given time in the history classroom. There are those that contend that the moon landing was a hoax, that Bigfoot is real, that aliens abduct people and that evil spirits cause mental illness. None of these views are taught in the classroom.

Why?

Simply because there is no solid evidence to support any of the contentions raised. They are pseudo-scientific, pseudo-historical or pseudo-zoological, lacking in evidence. Intelligent Design Creationism is exactly one of these pseudo-scientific ideas. Clearly it's proponents claim to disagree, but so do holocaust deniers, moon hoaxers, Illuminati conspiracy theorists and flat-earthers. They all believe that their minority, factually-unsupported position is true and deserves equal treatment. The only difference between a creationist and a flat-earther is that flat-earthers are far rarer these days. But from scientific standpoint, their positions are equally unsupported by evidence.

One reason I'm particularly upset by this movie is that evolution is not easy to understand but once you "get it" it's power, elegance, and breathtaking scope are literally staggering. Most people think they understand evolution but they don't. They understand a rough outline of a cartoon character version of it. They don't see how bio-diversity, genetics, eco-systems, and the like all interoperate to form this amazing web of life that shapes itself over time. People need to be taught the truth about it. We legitimately need dramatically better evolution education in this country. Instead, a movie like this perpetuates the lie that evolution is some sort of scientific conspiracy against God when in fact it's simply a discovery of how the world works, whether theists like it or not.

Evolution DOES NOT IMPLY ATHEISM. That is a lie as well. It is only via a lack of imagination and a desire to stick to a particular interpretation of scripture that people make this assertion. Evolution happens, happened, and will keep happening. It's observable, it's understood, it's entirely supported by genetics, the fossil record, chemistry, physics and real world experiment and observation. It's no more a theory in crisis than heliocentrism, gravity, or geometry. If a person refuses to accept that their particular conception of God needs to be adjusted to account for this fact of life and instead attempts to claim that this fact is not a fact, using the media to spread lies, fear, uncertainty and doubt because their views cannot gain traction any other way, well, that person is in the wrong and needs to come join the reality-based community, but they don't need to stop believing in God anymore than people had to stop believing in God when they realized the sun didn't revolve around the earth.

In short, ID isn't bad science, it's not even science. It's a religious PR campaign calculated to undermine science in the service of one particular interpretation of the Bible. It's preachers dressed up as scientists talking science talk and playing the victim card when real scientists require them to provide evidence to back up their contentions. This entire movie is based on the premise that IDer's are persecuted because the mainstream can't accept their conclusions when in reality ID has no conclusions, no research, no science at all. It's a social movement funded by rich born-again Christians to attack science in the public sphere and this movie is just propaganda on it's behalf.

Re: Expelled - The Movie

ryan — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:29:41 -0000

Re: The Atheist Apocalypse

ryan — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:21:56 -0000

Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't noticed. BTW, sorry I didn't get back to you this weekend. I got your message this morning. I need to pay better attention to my phone sometimes... :-(

Re: The Atheist Apocalypse

ryan — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:21:56 -0000

Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't noticed. BTW, sorry I didn't get back to you this weekend. I got your message this morning. I need to pay better attention to my phone sometimes... :-(

Re: Expelled – The Movie

ryan — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:09:36 -0000

OK, to clarify a bit:

If kids aren't given a good basis in good science at a young age they are unlikely to decide to pursue it when they pursue secondary education. Early learning is important for this reason. As a concrete example, people of my generation were exposed to computer programming in large numbers as children because the available computers at the time could not be used for anything particularly useful without programming them. Almost everybody I work with had a Commodore or Apple as a child. Contrast that to the current generation of college students and high school students who have grown up in the era of the Internet and remember the dot-com bubble bursting. There is a real shortage of new blood entering the field of software development because this generation sees it as a pointless dead end, not particularly exciting, and not anything they really want to understand. So, we're getting more and more of our software developers from India.

Now, as biotech becomes a more and more important part of our lives and our economy and as the environment becomes more and more endangered, we need more young minds to decide to move into the biological sciences to help advance research and solve problems facing our species and others. To deny evolution and paint science itself with a tarred brush is giving a fairly strong disincentive for impressionable kids to get interested in science. The advancement of ignorance becomes a larger and larger liability for our species as our technological dependence and sophistication grows.

Re: Expelled - The Movie

ryan — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:09:36 -0000

Re: In Honor of St. Patrick’s Day!

ryan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:52:27 -0000

Huh. I have no response to that.

Re: In Honor of St. Patrick’s Day!

ryan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:52:27 -0000

Huh. I have no response to that.

Re: Hooverville, 2008. Thanks Bush.

ryan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:00:47 -0000

I applaud your investigative skills. Perhaps this is not Bush's fault after all, in terms of ultimate causes. Maybe it just happened on his watch and it's the one catastrophe of his presidency that he's not responsible for.

A case could be made, however, that he's weakened the economy (devalued the dollar and driven up the costs of goods) enough with his tax breaks for rich people and trillion-dollar war that people would be able to afford their ARM adjustments and not have to leave their homes if he hadn't. When the costs of everything are going up (the rising oil prices driving up the costs of nearly everything) and THEN the cost of your mortgage jacks up as well, it becomes the straw that breaks the camels back. Without general inflation happening, I think massive amounts of people would not be losing their homes and Bush can be held responsible for many of those issues.

Re: Hooverville, 2008. Thanks Bush.

ryan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:00:47 -0000

Re: hold your tongue while we speak

ryan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:01:43 -0000

Well, it was written three years ago, back before I had friends again. :-)

Re: Religious Precepts I Can Agree With

ryan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:03:13 -0000

Which is exactly why I look forward to your comments. I'd rather be asked to defend a position or discover that I've made a mistake than just have everybody say "yeah, what he said".

Re: Religious Precepts I Can Agree With

ryan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:03:13 -0000

Which is exactly why I look forward to your comments. I'd rather be asked to defend a position or discover that I've made a mistake than just have everybody say "yeah, what he said".

Re: Expelled – The Movie

ryan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:30:08 -0000

Falterer,

I think you've pointed out an important distinction. When Creationists contend that evolution = atheism they actually hurt their own cause fairly extensively. I have heard others argue (and I agree with them) that all pseudo-scientific or quasi-logical attempts to defend the Bible (creationism and other exercises in apologetics) actually drive away people with the ability to think rationally from a belief in God.

I have spent years attempting to construct a viable theory of Christianity that can be 100% reconciled with science without losing it's fundamental message, and I have learned that it is impossible to hold on to certain core tenets. First, interpretation of Genesis as allegorical or traditional folk stories undermines the entire premise of Messianic salvation, which undermines the teachings of Paul but not, I might add, the teachings of Jesus. I don't see this as a real problem because I think Paul was a loon who just ripped off the mystery religions of his day, but to many Paul's message = Christianity. They are more interested in the religion about Jesus than the religion of Jesus. Plus, losing the doctrine of sacrificial atonement leaves a religion that no longer provides any obvious answers to any of the big metaphysical questions that religions are there to attempt to answer. Why are we here? Dunno. Why is there suffering? Dunno. What's the cure for suffering? Dunno. Judaism has much to offer in terms of interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures to try to tease out answers to these questions, but frankly it's too foreign an approach to those scriptures for a typical Christian-educated mind. Christians see the OT completely differently than Jews do, as some sort of warm-up act for their religion, not as a separate religion of it's own. So, Paul and Eden and all sorts of associated stuff get the ax and the Christian story suffers from it quite a bit. There is really only one thing left: what Jesus taught. Yes, some of that is quite good, but none of it is particularly original and once you remove the bits about sacrificial atonement that his writers put in there it's pretty weak stuff to build your life on. It tells you to treat people well, live a good life, help your enemies. I doubt any of us would disagree with those sentiments but it's not (IMO) a very broad base on which to build a complete spiritual life. I've said over and over again that I've been amazed at how much deeper, richer, and fully-formed Buddhism is in comparison.

Rather than taking the long, tedious approach I've taken of digging through the remains of a shattered mythology, trying to figure out what's salvageable and what's lost forever, many just either adopt a whole new mythology or chuck the whole thing out and say "because this conception of God is false, God doesn't exist". I can't say I blame 'em. Unless you actually feel you have something to gain by developing a personal religious definition and keeping some fragments of Christianity embedded in it, it's really not worth the effort. Yeah, I'm atheist, but there are certain conceptions of god/divinity/etc that I can still accept as feasible (although lacking actual belief in them). I'm also a Christian of sorts, raised with Christian values and principles and agreeing with such concepts as agape, honesty and love (although I don't even believe Jesus said or did anything written about him in the Bible, I don't think he's still alive, am not sure he ever lived at all and reject pretty much everything Paul ever said... some Christian). I'm a Buddhist mostly and a UU sometimes. This patchwork religious person brought to you by the dishonesty of Creationism... :-)

Re: Expelled - The Movie

ryan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:30:08 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

ryan — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:26:20 -0000

David,

You are right, absolutely, about the right of the "club" to make whatever rules it wants. The big question is whether or not a person who leaves the club has rights for redress of damages based on the rules the club makes.

In the case of Mr. Yoder, as a small-town farmer the treatment by the community resulted in a loss of livelihood as a result of a conspiracy to defame. It was established that he had a right to be compensated for that loss, not that the community was not free to make that rule. This is, I think, an important distinction.

There are certainly other situations wherein a person can sue another person or entity for damages based on treatment received. For instance, if I were to publish damaging information about you in the newspaper or on this website that resulted in loss of your job or even that harder to quantify "emotional distress" you would be within your rights to sue me. Yes, I am free to say bad, even false, things about you but to balance that out, you are free to sue me for the damage that might cause in your personal life. It's all about balancing out the equation.

The fact of the matter is that financial and emotional damages are routinely suffered by those who leave the JW's, whether they leave voluntarily or involuntarily. The only question is, is the person suffering the damages within their rights to attempt to seek restitution? In almost all cases within our civil society, the courts have determined that yes, this can be done. Defamation of character, loss of employment, etc, are real offenses that can be successfully fought in court. In your analogy of a "club" making whatever rules it wants to, there are legal limits to the club's rules and if they violate larger laws of the land in their rules they can be prosecuted and sued.

I would draw the analogy between the KKK and the WTS. The KKK is allowed to continue to exist because they have a constitutionally protected right to be what they are so long as they don't break any laws. It's not against the law to hate your fellowman, as they clearly do. There are no laws against thought crimes. However, if they lynch somebody, burn a cross in somebody's yard, threaten somebody, or in some way act in a way that violates the civil liberties of other people, they run afoul of the law. Just because you can have your disgusting little club doesn't mean that it can do anything it wants to others.

The big question is, what is the extent of protection for an individual's religious liberty? Clearly anybody can leave the WTS at any time and they do not attempt to stop you. But once you are out of their jurisdiction, are they free to act in ways that potentially deny you employment, hurt your standing within the community, destroy your family relationships or (in many cases) even lead you to suicide? If so, why? If any other corporate entity behaved in such a manner, if you quit your job and your former employer was free to publish malicious hate speech about you, forbid your family members from dealing with you without fear of punishment, and cause you financial hardship through the loss of any business relationships you had with people within the company, you could sue them. When a publishing company does that and claims religious liberty, you can't? Is the concept of religious liberty and the protections of such supposed to apply to the individual or to the corporation?

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

ryan — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:26:20 -0000

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

ryan — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:49:58 -0000

Two things I'd like to point out:

1. People baptized as minors cannot be considered members of the Watchtower Society in a legally binding sense because you cannot enter into a legally binding contract with a minor.

2. People who withdraw their membership from the organization voluntarily cannot be punished by the organization because they are outside it's jurisdiction.

That said, the argument that the WTS would be likely to make is that the post-exit shunning is not intended to punish the non-believing DA'd person, but rather to protect the members who are still within the organization, i.e. - they are not overstepping their jurisdiction because they are not exercising judicial authority. Ultimately, people are free to be assholes and the WTS is made up of people who have agreed as a community to be assholes and they cannot be stopped from doing so. I do believe, however, that there is a case to be made that they owe people restitution and that their published comments about former members being demonic and evil qualifies as conspiracy to defame, slander, libel, what have you, for which restitution can also be claimed.

Yes, David, they can run their club however they want. But no, the terms of the contract cannot be enforced against somebody who joined as a minor or against one who leaves the group voluntarily. Other laws come into play in those two situations and I believe that if you applied them to a secular institution rather than a religious one, the behavior of the WTS would be considered illegal. This is clearly a case of religious exemption to standards of conduct that are different in non-religious situations.

Re: Is Shunning of Disassociated People Illegal?

ryan — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:49:58 -0000

Re: God As I Knew Him – Part 2

ryan — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:39:33 -0000

Yes, it did occur to me that Rhett was older than me. However, by the time this happened he had already been having said dreams for a while. I thought I was overdue (plus I was a moronic kid, go figure). Funny bit of trivia... I've still never had one. Guess it's just something my body doesn't do...

Talk about a strange topic for a conversation on my website...

Also, I'm fairly sure I'm not the only person who entered baptism with a complex about themselves. It's probably more common than rare.

Re: God As I Knew Him - Part 2

ryan — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:39:33 -0000

Re: God As I Knew Him – Part 4

ryan — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:42:12 -0000

E,

You're welcome.

J,

I considered that. :-)

Re: God As I Knew Him - Part 4

ryan — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:42:12 -0000

E,

You're welcome.

J,

I considered that. :-)

Re: The Köfels Asteroid

ryan — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:23:37 -0000

I know there isn't a such thing as a hay molecule. I was just having fun with language. I'm sure you already realized that, but thanks for calling me a dimwit anyhow. :-)

Re: The Köfels Asteroid

ryan — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:23:37 -0000

I know there isn't a such thing as a hay molecule. I was just having fun with language. I'm sure you already realized that, but thanks for calling me a dimwit anyhow. :-)

Re: The Köfels Asteroid

ryan — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:22:54 -0000

Mark,

Thanks for dropping in and clarifying that. I would have suspected that the Biblical spin was applied by the journalist seeing what a ridiculous stretch it is. Glad to have that straight.

Susan,

Did you even write what I read? Look, according to the Bible there was a destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in 1900 BCE. This is an asteroid that struck in Austria 1200 years earlier. Yes, while in the sky it was observed in Sumer, no it could not possibly be held responsible for some story about the destruction of a city 1200 years later. Let's play a little game of perspective. Let's say that 3800 years from now people know nothing about 9/11 except a story about the destruction of the World Trade Center by "fire from heaven" sometime 3800 years earlier. This story was written in the year 3000 by people who had no connection to the actual event. Then some future archaelogists find a Mayan inscription about a comet observed in the year 800 and some writer speculates that the Mayan comet provides evidence to support the destruction of the World Trade center. That is precisely how absurd this contention is. You can't just conflate all past events and observations into each other, but that's what people do.

Why do I care? Why get upset about it? A few reasons. As a humanist I find it extremely disrespectful towards all the non-Judeo-Christian cultures of the world to behave as if they are irrelevant unless they somehow plug into our mythology. As a person who cares about truth and reason it's frustrating to have misinformation, pseudo-science and fuzzy religious thinking defining national policy, keeping my family members in a religious cult, destroying the education system in my country and basically gumming up the works all around. There are some bits of archaeology that confirm some parts of the Bible. We just don't need more fake evidence in support of mythological stories that reasonable people need to argue against when confronted by religious people trying to drum up "evidence" for their religions.

This discovery is awesome on it's own and it's evidence that the Sumerian culture was advanced and very interesting. We don't need to pretend it has something to do with the Bible.

Re: The Köfels Asteroid

ryan — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:22:54 -0000

Re: God As I Knew Him – Part 3

ryan — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:44:34 -0000

Yes we did, if my also questionable memory serves.

Re: God As I Knew Him - Part 3

ryan — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:44:34 -0000

Yes we did, if my also questionable memory serves.

Re: The Köfels Asteroid

ryan — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:28:18 -0000

Steve,

So a journalist makes an idiotic, ill-informed, baseless claim due to his own cultural-centrism and inability to interest people in his story without misrepresentation, I get annoyed by it and vent on my blog and you (who doesn't lose any sleep over any of this) take the time to come over here and write a long response in which you don't actually address my central contentions but just to tell me to chill out?

I can't Steve. I just can't. And I shouldn't and here's why.

This particular issue is not that big a deal. Were it an isolated event, it would be no problem. It is, however, not an isolated event and the cumulative effects of the hundreds and thousands of such events over the years have been massive.

Anything that lends false credence to ancient mythologies helps perpetuate their continued existence in our culture when we long ago should have recognized them for that they are, just-so stories. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of archaeologists and Biblical scholars do believe that Sodom and Gomorrah was just a story. The masses, however, do not. They believe that this story gives them license to persecute and hate people of a different sexual orientation than themselves. I am straight, myself, but I have friends who are gay and who suffer for it. This silly story is often used as justification for their mistreatment. The last thing on earth we need as a society if we're ever going to move beyond fairy tales and into reality (where, you might be surprised to hear me say, theism and spirituality can still have a healthy role to play) is to perpetuate ancient dead myths as fact-based history.

The following things never happened:

- A global deluge
- The Israelite captivity in Egypt and exodus into Canaan
- The Israelites wandering in the wilderness
- The book of Job
- The Tower of Babel

I could go on and on. These are all stories and just stories. To pretend there is evidence behind them is to perpetuate ignorance. It is this type of ignorance that leads people to persecute gay people, to oppose stem cell research, to kill their children by praying instead of bringing them to doctors, to subvert the science educations of kids by not teaching them about evolution, and again, I could go on.

People die due to religious ignorance. Families are destroyed due to religious ignorance. Religious ignorance is probably the single most destructive force on the face of this planet and certainly has been the most destructive force in my own personal life. So, when I see somebody attempting to bolster that ignorance, promote it, expand it, or attempt to prop it up with an air of respectability I have every right to cry bullshit.

One thing I want to make sure to clarify. The researchers who carried out this work are not to blame for the journalistic stupidity. They are good, honest, respectable researchers and they have discovered something really interesting and fascinating. It's just something interesting that has nothing to do with the Bible and the journalist was an idiot to try to claim it did. I'm impressed by their work, but annoyed by the journalist.

Re: The Köfels Asteroid

ryan — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:28:18 -0000

Re: New Site Theme

ryan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:49:14 -0000

I actually plan to integrate it into the RYANSUTTER.NET at the top of the page (replacing the A in Ryan with the OUT A) but when I tried it I had layout issues and I got impatient. Don't worry, it'll get moved to the more prominent masthead very shortly.

You think the font is too cramped?

Re: New Site Theme

ryan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:49:14 -0000

Re: New Site Theme

ryan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:33:42 -0000

I adjusted the font size and line-height for a little more breathing room. I'll think about the light-on-dark thing. I may just make it a user-selectable thing, you know, install a drop-down or something.

Anyhow, is this an improvement for readability?

Re: New Site Theme

ryan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:33:42 -0000

Re: I’ve integrated Twitter into my Wordpress blog.

ryan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:51:10 -0000

No way man, I like it in there. There's a lot of chicken sandwiches to eat.

Re: I’ve integrated Twitter into my Wordpress blog.

ryan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:51:10 -0000

No way man, I like it in there. There's a lot of chicken sandwiches to eat.

Re: New Site Theme

ryan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:15:43 -0000

Well, I aim to please. :-)

Re: New Site Theme

ryan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:15:43 -0000

Well, I aim to please. :-)

Re: New Site Theme

ryan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:55:56 -0000

It's not the actual graphic, but the scarlet letter A in my header links to the OUT Campaign site. Best I can do so far.

Re: New Site Theme

ryan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:55:56 -0000

It's not the actual graphic, but the scarlet letter A in my header links to the OUT Campaign site. Best I can do so far.

Re: New Site Theme

ryan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:35:08 -0000

I switched the line-height to 1.3em. How's that grab ya?

Re: New Site Theme

ryan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:35:08 -0000

I switched the line-height to 1.3em. How's that grab ya?

Re: New Site Theme

ryan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:35:42 -0000

Thanks, BTW, for all the feedback. I like it better already too!

Re: New Site Theme

ryan — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:35:42 -0000

Thanks, BTW, for all the feedback. I like it better already too!

Re: The Obama Bitterness Non-Controversy

ryan — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:32:16 -0000

Sorry, Grandpa Munster was a reference to John McCain. He's old. Really old. And cranky.

And yeah, I've seen Sicko. I didn't remember that the quote was in it though.

Re: The Obama Bitterness Non-Controversy

ryan — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:32:16 -0000

Sorry, Grandpa Munster was a reference to John McCain. He's old. Really old. And cranky.

And yeah, I've seen Sicko. I didn't remember that the quote was in it though.

Re: The Global Scourge of Friend Rock and How You Can Help Your Musicmaking Friends

ryan — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:15:53 -0000

Well, if you just share the music first and mention the relationship second you give the person a shot at developing an unbiased opinion. That's what I'm saying. Let the music have a shot first without the added weight of a relationship. Then if they like it, they must actually like it and if they dislike it, that's fine too. :-)

Re: The Global Scourge of Friend Rock and How You Can Help Your Musicmaking Friends

ryan — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:15:53 -0000

Re: Go Yoko.

ryan — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:01:16 -0000

No such thing. :-)

Re: Go Yoko.

ryan — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:01:16 -0000

No such thing. :-)

Re: Go Yoko.

ryan — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:41:39 -0000

I happen to agree with you that it's not worth getting all riled up over. Hence, I failed to get riled up and went with a simple "Go Yoko." I think she should do what she's doing, I don't think it's anywhere near as important as making sure that nobody takes Expelled seriously.

Re: Go Yoko.

ryan — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:41:39 -0000

Re: Why Can’t Barack Obama Close the Deal?

ryan — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:32:19 -0000

I don't mean to deny that racism is definitely in play here. Of course it is.

But I think that people who pride themselves on being progressive, liberal, what-have-you, will rarely allow themselves to think in overtly racist ways. They'll simply follow their gut towards the candidate that they feel resonates with them and it just so happens that the closer to their station in life, the more likely the resonance will be strong. They'll tell themselves, "I'm not a racist, I just don't think Obama is ready (read: he's too young)" or among Barack's supporters, "I'm not sexist, I just think that Barack has a better head on his shoulders"... the list could go on. This isn't just about Hillary's supporters or Barack's or McCain's, this is about the fact that with a variety of options comes more division based on non-issue-related factors.

Yes, racists exist and will definitely not vote for Barack no matter what. Sexists exist who will definitely not vote for Hillary no matter what. But I think the real bulk of the thinking boils down to people feeling more comfortable with people they can relate to, whether that's due to age, race, gender or some combination of the three. I think the statistics on who is voting for whom bear that out (for the most part) and that you can't simplify it to one issue.

It certainly makes politics more interesting, for better or for worse. For my money, I'm with Barack all the way the rich white boomers have had their way with wrecking the country, let's get some new thinking and a new cultural perspective in Washington.

Re: Why Can’t Barack Obama Close the Deal?

ryan — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:32:19 -0000

Re: The Math

ryan — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:22:01 -0000

That was a really interesting post man... although, are you saying that Hillary or Obama are playing by a particular strategy here? I'm not sure I'm seeing the connection, although I'd love to see the commercial you made. :-)

Re: The Math

ryan — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:22:01 -0000

Re: Twitter Updates for 2008-04-27

ryan — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:49:56 -0000

The sighting was, no doubt, as exhilarating for them as it was for me. They were dressed in typical civilian clothes, Phil geeky and Robin frumpy as would be expected. I failed to take note of what they purchased but I would guess it would be something like vanilla pudding, white bread and (for spice) potatoes.

Re: Twitter Updates for 2008-04-27

ryan — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:49:56 -0000

Re: I Love the Whole World

ryan — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:19:34 -0000

Sure seems to be working for me...

Re: I Love the Whole World

ryan — Wed, 07 May 2008 21:19:34 -0000

Sure seems to be working for me...

Re: The Math

ryan — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:00:21 -0000

Hey Lee,

I quite disagree with your take on Obama being a fraud and phony. Rather than attempt to argue that (which would likely be a pointless exercise since you seem so passionate about it) I gotta ask who you DO support in this race? Is there a candidate that you think represents you? Also, what has Obama ever said that would give you the impression that he has no respect for typical "salt of the earth" Americans?

Ryan

Re: The Math

ryan — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:00:21 -0000

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

ryan — Thu, 22 May 2008 15:15:37 -0000

David, I totally know where you're coming from about "deconverting yourself". I sometimes imagine I am speaking with my past self and try to figure out what I can say to win the argument. Heh.

And Falterer, I've been curious how things are with you. Still closeted? How's the wife handling things? You can respond privately if you want, I just wanted to let you know I've been thinkin' about you and your situation.

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

ryan — Thu, 22 May 2008 15:15:37 -0000

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

ryan — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:02:26 -0000

I think the thing that would have worked on me even when I was still in was a close up examination of the Creation book. I would have immediately been disturbed by the blatant dishonesty if I had only had it pointed out to me previously. It was really the thing that crushed my faith in the Watchtower Society, that book. Most other stuff I could have withstood somehow, I think.

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

ryan — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:02:26 -0000

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

ryan — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:13:46 -0000

Anthony,

Out of curiousity, what would you say to try to get me to believe in God? As one of the few theistic friends I have and few theistic contributors to the discussions here on this blog I invite you to feel free to expand on your beliefs and views as much as you like. :-)

Ryan

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

ryan — Fri, 23 May 2008 10:13:46 -0000

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

ryan — Fri, 23 May 2008 14:45:08 -0000

The case for classic strong atheism is covered here better than I could do in a comment.

My reason for not accepting the God(s) of the Bible are:

- I've researched the history of belief in Jehovah and found him to have originated as a member of a pre-Hebrew Mesopotamian pantheon. Nobody I know would argue that the remaining members of the pantheon were real so I don't see how they can argue that this one is any more real than Zeus, Odin, or Jupiter.

- I have researched the development of Christianity and find compelling evidence that it's origins are astrological, not historical, with only a passing relationship to Judaism. It's deeper roots go back thousands of years before the advent of the religion. I cannot find any evidence to differentiate the character of Jesus from any of the other now defunct solar dying-and-rising dieties like Osiris, Mithras, and Dionysus. So, as in the case of Jehovah, I find Jesus has his roots in pagan mythology, a mythology that even Christians would never accept as true.

There are other conceptions of god of course that I am not addressing here. The cosmic neutral prime mover god of the philosophers and deists, for example. Or the personification of our inner spiritual state as "divine". Definitions of god such as these are matters of personal opinion where belief and non-belief are concerned because they are not testable concepts and one could argue they don't truly constitute a God to speak of in the first place. However, an actively involved personal creator god is something completely different. Tell me which one you're talking about and I'll tell you why I lack belief in him/her/it.

Re: RyanSutter.Net’s 700th Post!

ryan — Fri, 23 May 2008 14:45:08 -0000

Re: http://www.ryansutter.net/blog/?p=809

ryan — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:18:26 -0000

Thanks for the kind words Penguin, you're not alone either. We were brothers and sisters before we left the Org, I like to think we all still are even without them.

BTW, I've added your site to the blogroll and subscribed to keep in touch. Thanks for dropping in and I hope to hear from you again.

Re: http://ryansutter.net/wp/2008/06/02/809/

ryan — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:18:26 -0000

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

ryan — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:25:20 -0000

How about this:

Despite the fact that Christian leaders have nearly destroyed our country over the last 8 years and despite the fact that belief in the supernatural is generally irrational and we need rationality from our leaders and despite the fact that I'm an atheist who believes in a secular government, it doesn't bother me that Obama is a professing Christian because he is a reasonable, intelligent, non-fundamentalist, believer in the secular role of government in a pluralistic society.

That's a bit long to fit on the subject line but I think you'd have to be a bit dense to not understand that if you have any knowledge of my positions on this blog. Damn man. Bigoted? No. Cautious about the very real role that Christian fundamentalism has played in driving this country into the ground for the better part of the last decade? Hell yeah.

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

ryan — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:25:20 -0000

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

ryan — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:44:21 -0000

One more thing because you really touched a nerve...

Christianity is an optional belief system, not a biological reality. Skin color is something you are born with and it does not give any indication about how you think or what kind of decisions you are likely to make. There are intelligent, kind, good, honest, hard-working, and amazing people in equal amounts in every race as well as equal amounts of ignorant, evil and lazy ones. People are people, old, young, black, brown, white, etc. You don't know what they think or how they think without hearing from them.

Believers, on the other hand, are a different animal. A believer must act, on some level, in harmony with their beliefs or they are no believer at all. Christian reconstructionists and neo-conservatives and born-again evangelicals all make irrational decisions that are rational within the framework of what they believe. Is it irrational to intentionally destroy the environment? To me, absolutely, but to somebody who believes that Jesus won't come until the last tree falls, it would be irrational to try to preserve the environment. Many Christians believe this crap. What's more, many Christian politicians believe that there is no place for non-Christians in this country.

As a believer in pluralism and openness and acceptance, it is Christianity that has been barring the door to progress for most of my adult life, Christianity that has destroyed my family bonds, not the people, the belief system. A belief system based on a fictional mythology and the irrational premise that Jesus is going to save us so we don't have to try to save ourselves. If Obama were that kind of Christian, the divisive, ignorant, xenophobic, "waitin' on Jesus" kind of Christian, he would be a dangerous president, just like Bush is.

The speech he gives here, however, proves that he's not that kind of Christian. Obama is the kind who is more concerned with the religion OF Jesus than the religion ABOUT Jesus. It's more important to act as he acted, to be pluralistic, to love our neighbors, to turn the other cheek, than it is to obsess over whether he's coming back to save us or whether he favors our country. That is a kind of Christianity that I can not only live with but can truly support, but it's a fairly rare type of Christianity in this day and age. I love Obama. I'm thrilled to have him in the race. I will vote for him and I encourage everybody else to do the same. I've donated to his campaign, and I encourage others to do the same. He is what a Christian ought to be and hopefully will be able to undo the damage that the Christians in office have wrought.

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

ryan — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:44:21 -0000

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

ryan — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:58:52 -0000

Non-Christian leaders?

How about most of the Founding Fathers. They were almost entirely deists.

Look, I don't care what religion somebody is, as long as they don't use it as an excuse to persecute other people or destroy our secular government. I don't care that Obama's a Christian because he won't do that.

I'll even go further. If he was an atheist like I am but wanted to step on the religious freedoms of others or use his atheism as an excuse to do something irrational or unconstitutional then I would say "I don't care that Obama's an atheist, I'm not supporting him". The whole point of this post was to highlight that he's an example of a Christian politician that a secular person can completely support. That's a rarity these days.

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

ryan — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:58:52 -0000

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

ryan — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:02:38 -0000

I mean, when a whole religion condemns those who don't agree with them to either hell or death at Armageddon and the majority of the adherents to that belief system believe that atheists should have no place in our society, one has the right to say, "Hey, even though this guy belongs to a religion that condemns me to burn to death forever and thinks I should have no place in society, I still support him" I have a hard time seeing how you can call that a bigoted statement.

Re: It doesn’t bother me that Obama is a Christian, and here’s why…

ryan — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:02:38 -0000

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

ryan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:07:43 -0000

I hate to let somebody else speak for me, but in this case, PZ Myers echos my thoughts very well:

Read his take at Pharyngula

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

ryan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:07:43 -0000

I hate to let somebody else speak for me, but in this case, PZ Myers echos my thoughts very well:

Read his take at Pharyngula

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

ryan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:11:18 -0000

I'm not saying I would vote McCain or that I wouldn't vote Obama, but this kind of thing needs to be spoken out about so I did what I felt was right and wrote him about my concerns.

In the short term, Obama is the best option, I agree, but supporting a candidate doesn't always mean agreeing with them. It can also mean attempting to convince them that a position they have taken is wrong, especially where the long-term health of the nation is concerned.

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

ryan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:11:18 -0000

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

ryan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:32:26 -0000

There are multiple ways I could "not support [his] candidacy" other than not voting for him. I could still vote for him but decide not to give him more money or promote his candidacy on my blog, for instance. This is more what I have in mind than not voting for him, but I felt it was better to leave that unspecified in the letter because what other leverage does a voter have? To say, "sure I'll vote for you but I won't feel as good about it, I won't pimp you to my friends and I won't give you anymore of my money" is more specific but perhaps not as useful as a vague threat. So, don't worry about whether or not I'll do the right thing come election day, but I will not and cannot remain silent while our constitutionally-mandated secular government is undermined by giving federal taxpayer funds to religious institutions and I won't just blindly support everything any candidate does if it's against my conscience.

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

ryan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:32:26 -0000

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

ryan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:59:03 -0000

I disagree David. Yes, I understand that the money is only supposed to be for secular actions carried out by religious organizations, but since when can religions be trusted and who is to oversee to make sure those things stay separate? And even in their supposedly secular purposes, since when can a church be trusted not to use the opportunity to push their religious message on people? Even a soup kitchen, even disaster relief, is all a commercial for the religion. I'm sorry, I just don't have much confidence in true altruism where religious organizations are concerned. Yes, some are OK, but for many their #1 priority is pushing their belief systems and charity is a vehicle to do that. I don't care who opened this door or why, it ought to be closed not opened further.

What about the statement "federal taxpayer funds to religious institutions" is incorrect here? If the Mormons or the Catholics or the Lutherans or the Baptists set up social programs that qualify for federal funds and receive said funds, that is precisely what is happening regardless of whether they claim to have only a secular agenda. I just see very little reason to trust that agenda at all. Let them do their charity by swindling their own flocks for the money or leave it to truly secular institutions who don't have a faith to peddle.

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

ryan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:59:03 -0000

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

ryan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:45:19 -0000

Of course I wouldn't scoff at any of that stuff or assume the priests were molesting the kids. I think it's perfectly fine for religions to do whatever they like with community involvement. I just don't see how it's any of the federal governments business to finance it. Let 'em promote their ideas, even if they are hogwash, that's fine by me, but my tax dollars shouldn't be spent to help prop up their institutions, that's all I'm sayin'. The churches have a right to exist and it's great that they want to help as long as they stay out of the government. The major reason for this is because the majority of religions are a form of institutionalized, canonized, irrationality and are at the root of a majority of the wars in human history and most of the hindrance of human progress. Sure there are exceptions, but this is the rule and looking at history one sees that governments have only been corrupted by close ties to religion. Once you start down a path such as this it sets a precedent that allows religion to make more and more in-roads into government. Let 'em have their little fantasy world and their happy little lies and their corrupt clergy and their swindling of their flock, that's fine. Let 'em distribute magazines, give out soup, tell people that fictional people were killed and resurrected to atone for the sins of other fictional people, I don't care, but just don't give them money that could be better spent maintaining national infrastructure, providing universal health care, or, better yet, could be given back to the taxpayers.

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

ryan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:45:19 -0000

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

ryan — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 03:11:59 -0000

I would rather see universal health care, truly, but I was throwing a bone to David's Libertarian leanings. ;-)

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

ryan — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 03:11:59 -0000

I would rather see universal health care, truly, but I was throwing a bone to David's Libertarian leanings. ;-)

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

ryan — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:10:23 -0000

I have no idea why there is no preview option. I'll see if I can enable it in Wordpress...

Re: Letter to Barack Obama

ryan — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:10:23 -0000

I have no idea why there is no preview option. I'll see if I can enable it in Wordpress...

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:46:56 -0000

Obama not only voted for the bill, he voted for cloture on the bill. It is not technically possible to get further from a filibuster than to vote for cloture and the bill itself.

This bill expands the powers to wiretap, makes what was previously illegal legal, removes the end date for these powers, and magically retroactively grants immunity to lawbreakers. This bill is a de facto endorsement and establishment of a legalized surveillance state in which no electronic communications are private from the government. This is the bill that George Bush has been dreaming of to get himself off the hook for his wiretapping felonies. Where is the outrage? The Constitution no longer matters at all to the Republicans or the Democrats, we live under the governments constant 24-hour surveillance even if we do nothing, laws that are broken by companies can be unbroken by giving campaign contributions and lobbying, and everybody says, "meh. we need to give up our liberties to stop those terrorists."

This is how fascist police states start. The airports already feel like that. REAL ID, legal unwarranted electronic surveillance, DHS, TSA... At some point this erosion has to stop or there will be nothing left to erode and this was a major deal. Obama voted for it. He could have withheld his vote. He could have filibustered and protected our privacy. He voted for it. He fucking voted for it.

He's no fascist, but remember, he can only serve two terms max. These laws, this infrastructure, these precedents, will outlast his term. When the Republicans get another Bush/Cheney in power they'll be even more well equipped to rape this country. Unless these things are repealed, unless our constitutional government is restored, you won't be able to travel from state to state without showing papers, people will be detained without charges indefinitely or "disappeared", everything you say and do will be potentially cause for detention or persecution, this is happening in Britain, it happened in Nazi Germany, it has happened over and over and over whenever these kinds of laws are enacted. Why would this country be any different? We're not magic. We're not special. If we strip people of their rights and privacy and disrupt the balance of power within the government, we will fall just like every other government that has made these mistakes.

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:46:56 -0000

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:43:48 -0000

According to the ACLU, the bill:

<ol>
<li>"nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance by allowing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to review only general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants. The FISC will not be told any specifics about who will actually be wiretapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful role for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure."</li>
<li>"trivializes court review by authorizing the government to continue a surveillance program even after the government’s general spying procedures are found insufficient or unconstitutional by the FISC. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever information was gathered in the meantime."</li>
<li>"grants absolute retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that facilitated the president’s warrantless wiretapping program over the last seven years by ensuring the dismissal of court cases pending against those companies"</li>
<li>"what [Americans] say on international phone calls or emails is no longer private. The government can listen in without having a specific reason to do so"</li>
</ol>

This bill legalizes dragnet government surveillance of the electronic communications of American citizens, while weakening judicial oversight of the process. That is precisely what I would call "de facto endorsement and establishment of a legalized surveillance state in which no electronic communications are private from the government". Admittedly this currently only applies to international communications, but now that the precedent has been established, if it stands, it will eventually entail all communications, domestic or international. I never said this bill said anything about the rest of the developing police state.

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:43:48 -0000

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:14:06 -0000

Yeah, I saw that too, but what difference does it make if the bill pays lip service to the fourth amendment while removing court oversight of who is being wiretapped? This system is already being abused and now they've opened the door to even further abuse with less oversight. Saying that a program that is inherently inconsistent with the fourth amendment "shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment" is pretty laughable.

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:14:06 -0000

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:27:07 -0000

Just for a refresher, ladies and gentlemen, the late, great, Fourth Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

You person, your house, your papers, your effects used to be yours. They could not be searched or taken from you without reason. The government needed to have probable cause to search you or your effects. These days they can confiscate your laptop at the airport, subject you to searches, scan your email and wiretap your phone, all perfectly legally, but quite unconstitutionally.

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:27:07 -0000

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:18:14 -0000

And one more from the PDF of the ACLU's legal challenge to the FISA law:

As amended, FISA allows the executive branch sweeping and virtually unregulated authority to monitor the international communications - and in some cases the purely domestic communications - of law-abiding U.S. citizens and residents.

...and...

The amended law (the "challenged law") eviscerates the "[c]lear legal standards and effective oversight and controls" that the Senate Church Committee concluded in 1978 were necessary to ensure that government surveillance did "not itself undermine the democratic system it [was] intended to protect."

So, finer legal minds than mine or yours have read this law and concluded that this is, indeed, a big damn deal.

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:18:14 -0000

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:14:25 -0000

Well, how about you let the legal team at the ACLU who have been studying this legislation for months now in on the amazing legal insights of your formidable mind because clearly they're morons who don't understand how to read.

A law can say things that make it sound like "oh yeah, only the bad guys are targeted here, really" while simultaneously weakening enforcement or oversight. This creates a real-world situation in which there is no way to do anything to curtail abuses. This bill basically puts the U.S. intelligence apparatus on the honor system where domestic spying is concerned. That's the fundamental problem with this law and why the ACLU is suing.

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:14:25 -0000

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:16:49 -0000

Oh, and apparently your boy Bob Barr is a moron who can't read as well:

http://2008central.net/2008/07/05/libertarian-candidate-bob-barr-hits-obama-on-fisa/

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:16:49 -0000

Oh, and apparently your boy Bob Barr is a moron who can't read as well:

http://2008central.net/2008/07/05/libertarian-candidate-bob-barr-hits-obama-on-fisa/

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:08:31 -0000

This isn't a matter of letting somebody else think for me. I have quoted the ACLU stuff because it summarizes the effects that all the analysts I can find say that the bill will have. I can find no analysis of the legislation anywhere that does not reach these conclusions. I am not personally (and I don't believe you are either) well-versed in the law to the point where I can read a bill like this and work out what all of it's repercussions are likely to be. It can look completely innocuous unless you understand the network effects. For example, the article I linked to about a journalist who discusses how he will not be able to convince dissidents in repressive foreign governments to share their stories with him because he will not be able to guarantee them that their communications will not be intercepted by the government, stored and even shared with their own governments. This is a concrete example of a specific effect that this bill will have.

No offense, but I don't trust your ability to analyze and interpret the effects of this bill. Every analysis I've read says that the effects of the bill are retroactive immunity and dragnet surveillance, so I suspect that's the case even if you can't see it in the text. Find me an in-depth analysis by a trained legal scholar that explains that this is all much ado about nothing and I'll happily post it and retract everything I've said.

Re: Obama Votes to Expand Illegal Spying on American Citizens

ryan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:08:31 -0000

Re: Obama

ryan — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:59:39 -0000

MyHowThingsChange is a known troll here at RyanSutter.net. Unfortunately. He/She is anonymous, apparently lacks the ability to comprehend what they read, and likes to act as if they know me or understand my character. Ignore anything they post is my advice.

Re: Obama

ryan — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:59:39 -0000

Re: Stop the Presses: A Gig

ryan — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:48:51 -0000

Punk.

I have no idea what the set list will be. Do you have any other requests?

And air that is devoid of people is empty from a performer's perspective. I didn't say "play to a vacuum" you silly person....

Re: Stop the Presses: A Gig

ryan — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:48:51 -0000

Re: Wake Up, Change the World

ryan — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:19:00 -0000

Good comment. :-)

Re: Wake Up, Change the World

ryan — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:19:00 -0000

Good comment. :-)

Re: Holding Back the Storm

ryan — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:09:24 -0000

Attitude is everything. Things that are out of our control are always happening. For example, we might be out on a walk and a storm might come up and start dumping rain on us. We can decide that being wet like that is something we categorize as suffering and run for shelter, swearing and cursing or we can decide to adjust ourselves to the new sensation and decide to enjoy the rain, even revel in it.

Christianity tells us that the world is inherently flawed and that we should spend our lives waiting for God to fix it. Buddhism says that nothing is broken, it is just how things are and good and bad are a matter of how we choose to perceive the world around us. We can either fight reality and try to keep everything the same, spending our lives bemoaning our "imperfection" and waiting for our "real life" or we can accept that things are constantly in flux and that the only way to minimize (not eliminate, but minimize) our suffering is to embrace change, embrace impermanence, and adjust ourselves to the changes that happen.

Sometimes, I admit, there are changes that can and should be resisted. If your spouse just decides one day she wants to leave you and you still love her and you think there is still a chance for your relationship, you may choose to resist that change. In so doing, you will also likely suffer. You may elect to have the suffering to try to hold on to what you have. However, there are some who would see such a situation as an opportunity to look out for the greater happiness of the other person and would wish them well and be at peace. I'm not sure that many of us are that enlightened, but if we were we wouldn't suffer nearly as much as we do in attempting to maintain our status quo.

Pain, well, pain and suffering often go hand in hand but physical pain, psychological trauma (PTSD, things like that), these things are not what I'm talking about here. When you break your arm you can't just change your perspective and be OK with it. But suffering, of the existential sort, of the sort that arises from relationships and self-doubts and things out of our control that we wish we could change, suffering that arises from loss, can only have one solution, a change in our perspective, because by definition it can't be controlled any other way.

Re: Holding Back the Storm

ryan — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:09:24 -0000

Re: Potluck

ryan — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 23:22:55 -0000

What I'm saying is that there are cases where kids are sexualized by other kids. Adults should never take the role of sexualizing kids, that's wrong and it's an adults job to reign in those kinds of impulses. However, in terms of understanding pedophiles, I think that yes, child sexuality is part of understanding it.

In the case of Humbert Humbert, his first love was a 12 year old girl when he himself was that age. As he aged, his sexual preference stayed stuck where it was. From this perspective, his 12-year-old sexuality is absolutely the key to understanding his lifelong obsession for girls of that age. It is stunted growth.

From an evolutionary perspective, we are the only species that does not start procreating as soon as we reach sexual maturity. Waiting until a socially appropriate age to begin sexual activity is a very recent invention in our species, only a few thousand years old in the parts of the world where it is the case at all. This is to be weighed against millions of years of biologically driven behavior. If a 12 year old boy wants to have sex with a 35 year old woman, he might be acting on a biological imperative. It is not necessarily a one-sided situation.

Now, I want to be very clear that I'm an NOT saying that this excuses adults in this situation or in any way justifies their behavior. Just because something stems from natural or evolutionary causes does not make it OK. That is the naturalistic fallacy. However, youthful sexuality does help in comprehending why such events and relationships take place.

Re: Potluck

ryan — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 23:22:55 -0000

Re: Potluck

ryan — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:21:38 -0000

I agree with you on pretty much everything you said. I think that 16 is a much more reasonable age of consent in most cases, for example. Although, if you looked at the map I linked to you would have noticed the following:

Throughout the United States, the age of consent varies from 16-18, with 16 being the most common. This would indicate that for the most part your views are inline with the majority of the culture you live in. However, in South America, 14 years old is the most common with some areas as young as 13 or (in the case of Mexico) 12. This would seem to indicate that cultural norms are different in South America where sex is concerned. The majority of European countries follow the South American trend with 14 being the norm, with a few countries on the 13 or 15 side. The most common age of consent globally seems to be 16, but it ranges from 9 to 20.

If nothing else, this indicates that there is only partial consensus on this subject.

One thing I want to clarify. When I use the term "sexual maturity" I mean it in the strictly biological sense of being capable of reproduction. I don't mean being OPTIMALLY capable of reproduction (yes, a wider hipped, fuller breasted more matured woman is more capable of successfully birthing a child than a 12 year old who just started menstruating, but evolution rewards reproductive success, suboptimal or no), and I certainly don't mean it in the sense of being psychologically sexually mature. I don't believe that anybody can be psychologically defined as "mature" until they are at least 25, as this is the point at which our initial neural development completes.

The interesting fact is that as a species we have removed our behaviours further and further away from our animal biology, but our animal biology and culture are still far from in sync. Because some girls are physically capable of reproduction at the age of 12 while others are not until the age of 14 or 15 but nearly all are by the age of 16, we have something of a consensus that it's somewhere around 16 for girls. A similar window exists for boys, with some being early bloomers and some late. Our societal definition of "adult" as 18 years old is one based on the idea that the majority are fairly certain to have reached physical adulthood by that age, although again there will be stragglers and those who were well ahead of the curve.

The point is that Mexico, with their 12 year old age of consent, seems to be basing their decision on the early bloomers biologically. Interestingly, Spain is close behind them at 13.

It's tough to know what to make of all of this beyond the fact that our culture and biology are both in flux, shaping each other, and that the attitudes about right and wrong here are all over the map.

For my money, I would never want to be involved, sexually or otherwise, with anybody under 25, because I don't feel that you are truly an adult until at least that age.

Re: Potluck

ryan — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:21:38 -0000

Re: Potluck

ryan — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:22:34 -0000

I'm a multi-faceted guy, what can I say?

Here I am with a pipe:

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/215/491402366_4d1b4e3b6f.jpg?v=0">

Here I am with a fish:

</img><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1264/549256969_df47355c7c.jpg?v=0">

Here I am with a guitar:

</img><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1002/799535326_6c82ea9bcd.jpg?v=0">

Here I am in a river:

</img><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1327/860709515_e4513789eb.jpg?v=0">

And in New York City:

</img><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1301/1093473898_7e8927e415.jpg?v=0">

See? Many facets! :-)</img>

Re: Potluck

ryan — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:22:34 -0000

Re: Upcoming Gigs Canceled

ryan — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:34:43 -0000

Heh. You're tellin' me...

You play your first gig out there yet?

Re: Upcoming Gigs Canceled

ryan — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:34:43 -0000

Heh. You're tellin' me...

You play your first gig out there yet?

Re: Connections

ryan — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:59:57 -0000

I'd like to say thanks to all of you who left comments on this post. I don't really feel totally comfortable saying much more than that, I mean, who wants to be one of those "they like me! they really like me!" people? But, I really appreciate the fact that I'm not alone and I have true genuine friends. When I get irrational about my connections to other people, it truly helps me put those negative emotions into their proper place as confused relics from my subconscious, not present realities.

So, again, thanks.

Re: Connections

ryan — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:59:57 -0000

Re: The Historical Jesus Puzzle – Part 1

ryan — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:59:01 -0000

Be patient, I have only just begun to discuss the topic. No, from what I've written here there is nothing conclusive to draw on other than "we don't have eyewitnesses". That's far from the whole story, however, so just hold on for parts 2, 3 and (probably) 4.

Re: The Historical Jesus Puzzle - Part 1

ryan — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:59:01 -0000

Re: McCain/Palin

ryan — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:07:18 -0000

It is traditional in reporting to use Mr. and Mrs. so it never occurred to me that it would be anything disrespectful. Governer would no longer apply, as she would have left that office behind. I suppose I could have used Ms but I'm not sure that is the choice she would make for herself because of her backwards conservatism. She is a married woman and that is an appropriate title. I'm confused why that would be a problem for her.

Re: McCain/Palin

ryan — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:07:18 -0000

Re: Good Advice

ryan — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:39:26 -0000

Andy, Andy, Andy.

If you still believe in the Republicans, still trust that there is anything good they can do for you or the country or the troops or our standing in the world or the national debt or the economy or anything else, well, I'm sorry for you. I really am. You can't look at the world right in front of your face, the lies they are telling you, the destruction of our economy, our constitution, the big government, the tax breaks for the rich, the illegal wars... If you can't see what 8 years of this style of government has done to our country, there is little or nothing I can say to convince you. Go therefore, vote against your own best interests, vote against the constitution, vote against freedom, vote against reason, vote Republican. Knock yourself out and when Obama wins and your life improves, well, if you're the kind of person you seem to be, I'm sure you'll still vote against him the next time, so, whatever.

Re: Good Advice

ryan — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:39:26 -0000

Re: Good Advice

ryan — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:11:56 -0000

Tell ya what Andy. I hate when big topics wind up buried in comment threads. How about you just hold on till Thursday and I'll do my big weekly post on all this. I'll focus on substance, not rhetoric. OK? Tune in Thursday night or Friday morning at the latest.

Re: Good Advice

ryan — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:11:56 -0000

Re: Substance (Part 1)

ryan — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:32:27 -0000

I think that a realistic appraisal of the Iraq situation, a sound plan, and the cooperation of the international community would have created a very different situation in Iraq. That said, I still don't believe it was a necessary war. Saddam was a broken man. He had no money, no real power, given time the Iragi people could have solved the problem themselves with a coup or something. Yeah, Saddam was an evil son of a bitch, but so are a lot of other petty despots. If the Iraqi people had deposed him (something they would have likely done eventually) there would be a million Iraqis still alive today. War is just such a blunt instrument. Why kill a million people to get rid of one? This is the kind of thing that always happens in wars like this and the cost is far too high for the result attained. The ironic thing is that Bush Sr. knew this, he understood the ethnic situation in Iraq, so he didn't do this. His son was too simplistic in his thinking and used the big, ugly, blunt tool to try to solve the problem rather than the complex but more effective options available.

Re: Substance (Part 1)

ryan — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:32:27 -0000

Re: New Episode of the Hue and Cry Podcast Available Now!

ryan — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:36:39 -0000

Definitely. Go to http://ryansutter.net/podcast in your web browser or http://feeds.feedburner.com/RyanSutterPodcast with an RSS reader.

Enjoy!

Re: New Episode of the Hue and Cry Podcast Available Now!

ryan — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:36:39 -0000

Definitely. Go to http://ryansutter.net/podcast in your web browser or http://feeds.feedburner.com/RyanSutterPodcast with an RSS reader.

Enjoy!

Re: Are You Registered To Vote?

ryan — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:40:13 -0000

I don't know what the deal is with that website

The website of the MN Secretary of State has everything you need to register yourself to vote:

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/index.asp?page=204

You have to print out the PDF, fill it out and mail it in. That should do the trick. You should receive a card confirming that you are indeed registered.

Re: Are You Registered To Vote?

ryan — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:40:13 -0000

Re: http://www.ryansutter.net/blog/?p=998

ryan — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:47:48 -0000

Look closer. That's a Nintendo DS.

Re: http://ryansutter.net/wp/2008/11/04/998/

ryan — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:47:48 -0000

Look closer. That's a Nintendo DS.

Re: MacBook

ryan — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:24:11 -0000

I love the twin names. Very cute! Also "Mac the Knife".

Re: Twitter Updates for 2008-12-20

ryan — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:44:45 -0000

I've been planning to dig into MIT's Open Courseware for years and never quite manage to get around to it. Thanks for the reminder of the resource. I have a little boning up on math to do before I'm MIT ready, but I'll definitely be digging into it.

Ry

Re: Certified Apostate

ryan — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:27:20 -0000

Iverson, but good guess. I think VB is still a JW.

Re: Dawkins

ryan — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:35:01 -0000

Speaking of all this... does anybody know when/where the talk will be online?

Ryan

Re: Dawkins

ryan — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:33:32 -0000

Hey Dan,

I plan to hit Lebanon Hills myself. Maybe we'll run into each other there. I also like to go around Alimagnet as it's a bit closer to me.

As far as "intent" in Dawkins, I think that's easy to read into what he says because he uses language like "the selfish gene" but he made pretty clear in his lecture that it is more of a metaphorical linguistic thing than any suggestion of conscious intent. There is clearly no intent there on the part of the genes that are acted upon and being selected for survival. He explicitly said that in his lecture. The only place where there is intent is when a particular species intentionally selects traits they find desirous in another species. For instance, a bee selects the flowers it likes, a human selects the flowers it likes, the flowers wind up reflecting the intentions of the selectors through a blind, unintentional, process on their part.

Thanks for coming over and joining in the conversation man. Hope to see ya on the trails!

Ryan

Re: Why Do Americans Fail To Understand Science?

ryan — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:31:14 -0000

Oops! Thanks Jeff. Late night blogging is always dangerous... I corrected it.

Re: The First Christmas

ryan — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:34:00 -0000

Merry Christmas Joe.

I understand what you're going through as you are no doubt aware. And I just want to tell you that even before I read this today I thought about you and I hoped you were doing well.

Peace brother...

Ryan

Re: Measure 11

ryan — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:46:00 -0000

I think this is a very well argued and nuanced discussion on a very difficult issue. I too found that when I moved out of fundamentalism I found myself in unfamiliar waters on this topic. I had, my entire life, purported to believe that all life was to be protected from the moment of conception. This position, however, was challenged by a number of things. In addition to the points you make in your blog about exactly when person-hood is attained (IMO, with the development of a functioning brain and nervous system) there was the concept of cloning.

When I considered the possibility that any cell within my body contained DNA that could theoretically be coerced into developing an entire copy of me I realized that there was precious little difference between a fertilized egg in the early stages of cell-division and any other cell in my body. My cells contain at least the theoretical possibility (albeit, requiring artificial assistance) to develop into a human being. In order to be consistent in accepting a blastocyst, which is a simple lump of undifferentiated cells, as a "person" wouldn't I have to treat any group of undifferentiated cells in that same way?

If I were able to take a sample of my DNA, put it into a cell membrane and coerce it to start replicating into a blastocyst and then destroy it at an early embryonic stage, I would not feel that I had just created a life and murdered it, but that would be the interpretation from a religious standpoint.

I don't know exactly what I'm saying other than that it gets complicated and when I started thinking about things like stem cells, cloning, and the biology of conception, implantation, and embryonic development I just saw that the "line" exists somewhere, but not at conception.

Re: I'm Still Alive!

ryan — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:41:00 -0000

Hey Joe,

I apologize for not having subbed to your blog earlier and become aware of this. For some reason, I had not previously realized you were writing over here (despite you linking here in comments... I just didn't look carefully). Anyhow, how I'm reading and this sort of broke my heart. Sorry man...

Ryan