Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Register Guard)   Man gets around same-sex marriage laws by having sex change after twenty years of marriage   ( divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

6572 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2005 at 10:45 PM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

62 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2005-10-16 01:23:04 AM  
So how come men change to women? Why dont women change to men? Is it because the men are gay and cant deal with it?
2005-10-16 01:28:58 AM  
Um, women get sex-reassignment surgery all the time. They used to think that it was far more common for it to be male-to-female, but the ratio is actually about 1:1 in most places. (And in some places there are actually more female-to-males than male-to-females. Singapore, maybe? I forget which country exactly.)
2005-10-16 01:50:52 AM  
wtf, how many trannies are on fark, seems like it doesn't match normal statistics.
2005-10-16 02:13:06 AM  
wtf, how many transformers are on fark, seems like it doesn't match normal statistics.

Anecodotally, it seems that a relatively high percentage of transgendered people are of the techie persuasion, although the reasons for this phenomenon aren't clear.

Once I was at a support group meeting, and we spent the whole time talking about things like repairing antique clocks, designing ring laser gyroscopes, calibrating magnetometers on spy satelites... not just geeks, but geeks of a very high order... not the kind that argue about which graphics card is better.

Why so many on Fark? I dunno... maybe they like the photoshops? That's how I wound up here.

/feeling a little better tonight
2005-10-16 02:15:34 AM  

I just wish that more people would realize that science and God are not mutually exclusive.

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but please permit me to play devil's advocate for a moment.

For the scientific method to operate, a scientist must assume that the universe obeys some rational rules, which then can be inferred via experiment.

A Christian, on the other hand, starts off with the assumption that the universe is controlled by an omniscient creator, who has an unknowable free will and thus is by definition not rational.

It seems that the assumptions a scientist and a Christian start from about the world rather explicitly contradict each other. How do you rectify this to say that they're not mutually exclusive?

I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts. :-)
2005-10-16 02:34:51 AM  
joethebastard, i'm agnostic, so i don't really have too much of a position on this either way, but there are some ways that you can argue for the existence of a god (maybe not THE God, but some kind of thing like that), at least as a thought experiment (as opposed to just blind faith). For example, there's this arguement:

1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
5. There must be a first cause.
6. God was the first cause.

Or this one:

1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.
2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.
3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).
4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.
5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).
6. from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).
7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).

I guess those aren't exactly what you'd call 'hard science'; they're more on the same level of science as the grandfather paradox and stuff like that. But it's better than nothing i suppose.
2005-10-16 02:51:49 AM  

thanks for your response... I take a bit of issue with your ontological arguments, though:

1. Everything has a cause.

There is a wealth of experimental evidence suggesting that this is not true.

Your second argument is a clever one; I've not seen it before. It's fine, I guess, as long as you solely equate God with "the greatest entity that can be conceived". I generally see him being referred to with far more specificity. ;-)

As for whether these are scientific; remember that any scientific theory must make predictions that allow for it to be experimentally falsifiable. It is important to separate ontological arguments from scientific ones!
2005-10-16 03:44:22 AM  
It is important to separate ontological arguments from scientific ones!


I don't know. I don't believe either in or not believe in God either way, but it doesn't seem illogical to me that God and science could both be right at the same time. I guess that assumes that God exists in the first place, though, and your arguement seems to be that science doesn't allow for that assumption. :shrug:

(... Funny how i've never participated in a thread here without it going wildly off-topic.)
2005-10-16 03:45:10 AM  
Er. Way to go English.

I neither believe in nor not believe in God*
2005-10-16 03:45:49 AM  
That's not right either. Never mind, you get what i mean. :(
2005-10-16 10:30:24 AM  

I look through this thread and I see more examples of ignorance, small mindedness, bigotry and stupidity than comments from those who actually know what they're talking about.

But this is Fark so that's what you expect.
2005-10-16 02:30:49 PM  

Speaking as a pastor, not all Christians assume the omnipotence of God. Some Christians point to the crucifixion as a sign that God/the Divine/the Holy suffers from the encounter with the mortal world and is subject to it in a sense.

Many Christian theologians view the scientific method as a paradigm that applies to the physical world, and theology as a paradigm that applies to the meta-physical. Science explains the things we can see and touch and measure, and religion is a way to approach the things we cannot.

As a related note, since my Ph.D. work (in a Religion department) uses an anthropological methodology, my research proposal uses the standard elements of the scientific method (establishment of a hypothesis, determination of dependent and independent variables, controlling for certain variables, and use of a repetable and verifiable method). The study of religion is a different animal entirely from the practice of it; but the two are not considered mutually exclusive in many university settings.

Displayed 12 of 62 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.