Hope for your project - a little off topic.

Discussion in 'C++' started by woodbrian77, Jun 9, 2013.

  1. woodbrian77

    Geoff Guest

    Ah, so it appears you are not Christian. Your god is not the loving,
    forgiving god of the New Testament but the vengeful, powerful and
    destructive god of the Old.

    Here we have a prophet who uses his "power" to curse a group of
    "children" who harmlessly teased him about his appearance. The prophet
    is vain, the children perish, the prophet receives forgiveness.
    Hypocrisy at it's finest. This supposedly teaches the prophet a lesson
    about his "power" and he transgresses no more. If his enlightenment
    truly came from God he would never have transgressed at all.

    This is typical of the O.T. stories, God acts destructively in
    response to "sin" and people die. God forgives only after the fact.
    This is what makes the O.T. so illogical and fallacious.

    Above all, the Golden Rule applies. Always treat others as you want to
    be treated. Transgress this and live in hell.
    Geoff, Dec 24, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  2. woodbrian77

    J. Clarke Guest

    So a masochist should always inflict pain on others? I think a better
    rule is to always treat others as _they_ want to be treated.
    J. Clarke, Dec 25, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  3. woodbrian77

    Daniel Guest

    Finally back on topic for comp.lang.++! so People Who Answer Questions must
    always treat People Who Ask Questions the way they want to be treated, no more
    pestering them to post code, or scolding them for void main(){} and the like.

    Daniel, Dec 25, 2013
  4. woodbrian77

    J. Clarke Guest

    Why not? Pestering them to post code doesn't do any good as near as I
    can tell--the ones who understand why they need to do that do it without
    being asked, and the ones who don't seem to never grasp the concept.

    In any case, I think that those who post code fragments without any
    output or messages are ignoring the Golden Rule anyway, as they seem be
    expecting others to work miracles for them while they offer no miracles
    J. Clarke, Dec 25, 2013
  5. woodbrian77

    woodbrian77 Guest

    He was angry at their foolishness. Perhaps they concluded that
    because Elisha hadn't been taken up with Elijah he was inferior
    to Elijah. They mocked him with "Go up". If they were
    challenging his authority, the bears may have helped them
    and others to know Elisha had the same authority as Elijah.
    Elisha's work among them would go on for years after this
    I'm not sure anyone died. A couple of translations use the
    word 'tore' another uses the word 'mauled'. I think 42
    were hurt, but not sure beyond that.
    woodbrian77, Dec 27, 2013
  6. woodbrian77

    Geoff Guest

    So foolishness is a capital offense.
    He was, in fact, inferior to Elijah since he was his disciple until
    that time.
    "Go up baldy" being the euphemism for "Die, baldy, die."
    And here we have the true answer to life's ultimate question.
    Geoff, Dec 27, 2013
  7. woodbrian77

    Daniel Guest

    Curiously the number 42 is also the "Answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything", a fact that I am sure will not be lost on our excellent Mr Flibble.

    Daniel, Dec 27, 2013
  8. woodbrian77

    Ian Collins Guest

    Like programmers mocking the style prophets with goto?
    Ian Collins, Dec 27, 2013
  9. woodbrian77

    Öö Tiib Guest

    Did you really want to discuss these old fairy tales or what? Yes,
    no one died. The good hunter came and cut the stomach of those
    bears and let the little red ridding-hoods out again. Or something
    like that.
    Öö Tiib, Dec 27, 2013
  10. woodbrian77

    Geoff Guest

    Geoff, Dec 27, 2013
  11. woodbrian77

    woodbrian77 Guest

    If I'm all wrong, what about what I've been working on?
    Do you think on line code generation is the wrong path?

    This though might be like asking Noah's contemporaries
    for their thoughts on the ark. They may have thought
    it was a waste of time or something like that.
    woodbrian77, Dec 27, 2013
  12. woodbrian77

    Daniel Guest

    Except in this story it was the good hero who sent for the she bears ...
    Daniel, Dec 27, 2013
  13. woodbrian77

    woodbrian77 Guest

    You ignored the first/primary part of my reply.
    woodbrian77, Dec 28, 2013
  14. woodbrian77

    Jorgen Grahn Guest

    In other words: please don't feed the trolls. From where I'm looking,
    half of comp.lang.c++ is wasted on the Leigh-vs-woodbrian offtopicness
    and that is not how it should be.

    (And I wish I had something useful to contribute with, but I'm in my
    comfort zone with regards to C++ right now -- I know how to do
    whatever I want to do, and to do more I'd have to read up on C++11.)

    Jorgen Grahn, Dec 29, 2013
  15. woodbrian77

    Daniel Guest

    Less than half, but it would be great if Leigh went back to what he does best,
    what he's very good at, which is to answer questions about C++ programming. It
    is the language, and only the language, that unites people here, and it is not
    possible to resolve other differences here.

    Although at the moment there does seem to be a shortage of questions ...

    Daniel, Dec 29, 2013
  16. * Qu0ll:
    Paavo happens to be right that the term is ill-defined (and of course,
    he's wrong about not needing to decide).

    Whatever criterion one chooses for "first human" it gets probabilistic
    and murky whether it's satisfied or not for any particular specimen. Our
    genetic information is fuzzily defined (there is great variation between
    individuals), and is just part of the molecular definition of the
    species. How the genes are expressed for in-body cell activity depends
    on the soup of chemicals in and between the cells, and this soup can
    vary, over the lifetime of an individual, and depending on the itself
    evolving environment. How the genes are expressed for procreation
    depends on the opposite sex individuals in the environment.

    Not to mention that people who disagree on criteria, or agree about an
    incomplete set of criteria, may disagree, to the tune of tens of
    thousands of years, about /when/ the first human existed.

    There seems to be some similarity to the "small heap" paradox. Start
    with a small heap of stones, add another typical tiny stone, then a
    small heap plus a tiny stone is still a small heap. So it will be
    forever small, no matter how many tiny stones are added one at a time.

    I think most kinds of macro-level physical identification are that way:

    The Bible's stories are not much about critical rational thought anyway.
    They're mostly about the opposite, namely blind obedience, supporting a
    dominance hierarchy. Do not eat fruit from that tree. Do kill your son.
    Do not look back on the city. Inbreeding is OK. So on.

    One oddball exception: the story of Susannah (English speling?) in the
    garden (or bath), where one critical-thinking young fellow prevented her
    punishment of death by stoning for the crime of being raped.

    I think for most Biblical stories the one, mister X, who created or
    elaborated on that story probably wanted people to behave the way
    indicated by the story. Blindly obeying mister X, letting him have his
    way no matter how irrational or meaningless it seemed. Letting mister X
    get away with having sex with his daughters, or killing his son. So on.

    Cheers & hth.,

    - Alf (off-topic mode)
    Alf P. Steinbach, Dec 29, 2013
  17. Of course not, and it's not a question of subjective belief either. The
    notion of a first human is meaningless because it builds on an incorrect
    assumption of the possibility of perfect, non-fuzzy and
    context-independent classification. Thus any belief in that notion, or
    failure to disbelieve it, is misplaced and irrational.

    Cheers & hth.,

    - Alf (still off-topic mode, but this has to end, there has to be a last
    OT post)
    Alf P. Steinbach, Dec 29, 2013
  18. woodbrian77

    David Brown Guest

    I think it is reasonable to say that since there is no possible
    definition of a "first human" (outside of religious fiction, and even
    there it is invariably inconsistent in every creation myth I have heard
    of), it is fair to be categorical and say there was no "first human".

    It is not uncommon amongst some religious people to deliberately
    misunderstand evolution and the concept of species. They read in their
    favourite book a few brief comments about early humans and other
    species, then extrapolate, misinterpret and misunderstand to come up
    with a theory about biology and species in which species are absolute
    and well defined. It's a logical as watching "Singing in the Rain" and
    coming up with a meteorological theory correlating the levels of rain
    with songs, but they seem to think it makes sense.

    So Biblical literalists think the two choices are "you believe God made
    humans and other species as complete, individual and unchanging
    concepts" or "you believe evolution made humans and other species as
    complete, individual and unchanging concepts through inexplicable leaps
    - one day a chimpanzee gave birth to the first human".

    Despite your (and Alf's) rather good explanations of species and
    "fuzziness", I doubt if you will change Qu0ll's fundamental and
    self-reenforced misunderstandings.
    David Brown, Dec 29, 2013
  19. woodbrian77

    Öö Tiib Guest

    I believe there was at least twelve "first" humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens)
    whose offspring has survived to this day. Humans might have several
    ancestors among Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis or Homo Sapiens Idaltu.
    It feels nonsense to believe that there was the one single "first human".
    The apes did live in big packs already back then and the beneficial
    mutations happen rather slowly ... not like *bang* and that's now human
    but its mother and father ... no those were apes.
    I don't critique the Bible. Unlike Leigh Sausages Johnston I do find it
    quite notable piece of fiction considering that some parts of it were
    written 2500 years ago.
    I agree with Leigh there. I also trust that you can find better answer
    (and links and reasoning) from more dedicated newsgroups (like talk.origins).
    Öö Tiib, Dec 29, 2013
  20. woodbrian77

    Geoff Guest

    And if there was a "first human", and if that definition is crisp,
    then who did he/she mate with and what are the offspring called?
    Because if he/she was the sole human on the planet (by definition)
    then all other potential mates were sub nor non-human and their
    offspring, having only 1/2 human DNA cannot be called fully human.

    The bible story, of Eve being made from components of Adam certainly
    makes sense from a human mated to human standpoint but the resulting
    incest of the offspring certainly makes no sense genetically. For God
    to set man up as a species by act of incest and then to make incest
    taboo in the subsequent chapters is completely illogical. One cannot
    take these stories literally, and that is the mistake of Creationists.
    But then again, a world filled with the product of incest, having
    recessive defects and retardation, certainly explains a lot of people
    walking around in the world today. They would appear to be classified
    as biblical literalists and creationists.
    Geoff, Dec 29, 2013
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.