Comments | lurkitty: Giving Ted the Turing Test

lurkitty

Giving Ted the Turing Test

Feb 08, 2007 08:28

You owe a great debt to Alan TuringTake any computer history class and you will learn about the Turing machine (perhaps having to simulate one) and the Turing Test for artificial intelligence. Take any mathematics course on codes and ciphers and you will encounter Enigma and the Turing-Welchman Bombe used to crack German codes. His name shows up at ( Read more... )

geek, homophobia

Comments 9

miladycarol February 8 2007, 17:06:07 UTC

I about coughed up a stainless steel coffee mill when I heard that. Gah! If only things could be so simple.

I should not speak further as I do not want to make myself mad this early in my day. I have far too many positive things to do. *nods and harumphs*

lurkitty February 8 2007, 21:43:48 UTC

Live and let love.

sandalfon February 9 2007, 04:14:11 UTC

I've never been able to like anything about Ted Haggard, he has always been a hypocrite, so I cannot feel sympathy for him in any way. I just truly hate the way our world is still being so manipulated all around us like this, just to make people "fit" into the form that our society (the controllers) force us to try to fit into. I also understand just how frigging hard it is for those with different sexual preferences to open up about their sexuality. Fred and I are both bi. I don't give a shit what other people think about me, but Fred (being a man) has been constantly attacked for his sexuality, for the fact that he has liked trying to cross-dress and different things such as that ( ... )

lurkitty February 10 2007, 00:22:45 UTC

We see how a victim becomes a perpetrator here. THese things don't happen in a vaccuum. Haggard denies his nature, and becomes embittered, and forces other children to deny their nature, who become embittered and angry and violence against homosexuals spreads.

It is harsh and hateful.

aureantes February 9 2007, 04:36:36 UTC

The estrogen therapy also made him grow breasts, btw. Can you imagine anything more humiliating for a man, whatever his sexuality, than having breasts and not even having a good reason/drive to do anything with them?

Just something to think about.... :-|

lurkitty February 10 2007, 00:17:11 UTC

There are other implications of the therapy, too. He was a marathon runner. What do you suppose it did to his atheletic ability, knowing what we now know about hormones and performance? What they took from this man for no reason other than his sexual preference was inexcusable.

aureantes February 10 2007, 03:13:02 UTC

I wholeheartedly agree. He did a hell of a lot for his country, and it betrayed his loyalty completely. I'm appalled at the things that have been done in the name of "normalizing" people who had every right to lead their own lives and hadn't even been harming anyone in the process -- and particularly that have been done by their own homeland's government. Even the old standard practice of disallowing secret agents for any homosexual past or present activity, on the excuse that they would be liabilities to the national security because of the risk of blackmail...honestly, from where does this legalistic sexual 'morality' come if not from the governments involved?

If a government actually values a person's contributions, then why damn him by the laws that they could easily defang or revoke if they cared to? To let a man's whole life be ruined over his private life only proves that they have no honour and are ungrateful wretches undeserving of anyone's loyalties or crucial expertise.

(The comment has been removed)

lurkitty February 10 2007, 00:28:52 UTC

I know. I want to scream mostly because I can show them how wrong they are - where their own documents contradict their actions. But admitting they are wrong means admitting truths about themselves they are unprepared for, so they drag others down with them.

aureantes February 10 2007, 03:26:49 UTC

On the bright side, there is a good deal of implication that it was his own parish who wanted him out of the ministry, and that it really wasn't his sexuality but the hypocrisy of it that was the crucial element.

The man is a liar, and his mentors are enabling him to lie in the name of penance. Everyone with a realistic sense of their own sexuality knows that things are not black-and-white, and moreover that orientation is not determined by activity. It is not defined by deed but by desire -- if the desire exists, then there is no defense for defining one's orientation as 100% heterosexual. Neither does that automatically mean that one can be smeared nor claimed as 100% homosexual...but the people who are running this charade from the top have no intention of admitting such shades of gray into their discourse, because it would undermine the entire basis of their "therapy" and "rehabilitation" in the first place. Their own standing depends on verifying him as a God-fearing heterosexual male, rather than some innately-contaminated ( ... )