Personality
Discuss specifics of personality design, including what Keyphrases work well and what dont, use of plug-ins, responses, seeks, and more.
Posts 3,082 - 3,093 of 5,106
Posts 3,082 - 3,093 of 5,106
New replies
Forest, will you talk to God Louise? She has quite a bit of religious knowledge (obviously) and also knows a little about current events, literature, just about any common catch-all subject, and if she doesn't know it she can sort of fake it. You can also test her on trick questions or see how willing she is to explain her paradigm.
What she is rustiest at is plain old small talk. But, uh, I'm trying to get a decent transcript from somebody or another so I can enter her in the Loebner contest. All I can say is, have fun and see if you can stay on with her for a while. I'll try to do the same with Brianna.
What she is rustiest at is plain old small talk. But, uh, I'm trying to get a decent transcript from somebody or another so I can enter her in the Loebner contest. All I can say is, have fun and see if you can stay on with her for a while. I'll try to do the same with Brianna.
Personality
Exactly.
I guess a lot of people just think it's gross for some reason. But consider that gay people think heterosexual relations are gross, too. (There are certain things it's just not polite to talk about in front of my lesbian cousin, heh.)
No, I don't wanna see gay people kissing and groping each other on the street. But I don't wanna see straight people kissing and groping each other on the street either.
I guess a lot of people just think it's gross for some reason. But consider that gay people think heterosexual relations are gross, too. (There are certain things it's just not polite to talk about in front of my lesbian cousin, heh.)
No, I don't wanna see gay people kissing and groping each other on the street. But I don't wanna see straight people kissing and groping each other on the street either.
It should<0> be, imo, but there are some supremely paranoid people out there. I know an extreme conservative who is convinced that if gay people are allowed to marry, then we'll suddenly have an explosion of polygamy/polyandry, even though we're still defining marriage as between two<0> people. *shrugs*
They're just taking the argument to absurd extremes. Their line of reasoning is "If we can challenge the concept of marriage being between a man and a woman today, tomorrow we'll be challenging the idea that it's between two people."
Personally, I don't see how gay marriage could threaten "normal marriage" any more than it already is. Marriage is already in trouble that has nothing to do with gay people. The trouble with marriage is caused by (a) the wrong people marrying each other, and (b) people getting married for the wrong reasons. Legalizing gay marriage might actually influence people to marry because of love rather than money or something, but only if people can stop being too damn prejudiced to see the truth. That's the real threat to marriage right there...prejudice, hate, and fear. And these, unfortunately, are posessed in higher quantities by straight people.
Personally, I don't see how gay marriage could threaten "normal marriage" any more than it already is. Marriage is already in trouble that has nothing to do with gay people. The trouble with marriage is caused by (a) the wrong people marrying each other, and (b) people getting married for the wrong reasons. Legalizing gay marriage might actually influence people to marry because of love rather than money or something, but only if people can stop being too damn prejudiced to see the truth. That's the real threat to marriage right there...prejudice, hate, and fear. And these, unfortunately, are posessed in higher quantities by straight people.
I don't think the polygamy argument is entirely without base. It is true that allowing homosexuals to marry requires a redefinition of what "marriage" means, historically. If it can be redefined to include same-sex couples, why can't it be redefined to include larger groups? On what basis is the line drawn at that point?
I don't do the poly thing, but I don't have a problem with it either. At the same time, let's remember that these are two DIFFERENT situations.
Anyway, long-term gay couples already exist, as they have for years and years and years. Why not support strong relationships instead of trying to tear them down?
Anyway, long-term gay couples already exist, as they have for years and years and years. Why not support strong relationships instead of trying to tear them down?
Poly relationships currently exist too, in fact there's whole communities about them on livejournal and probably other sites too. I couldn't live that way myself, and I don't understand why some people seem to enjoy it, but as long as they're happy, who am I to say they can't do it?
Anyone who says enlarging the definition of marriage would make it less sacred should consider the fact that it's not exactly sacred now. Maybe that's the ideal, but in practice it's generally a legal thing. And we're supposed to have separation of church and state, right?
Anyone who says enlarging the definition of marriage would make it less sacred should consider the fact that it's not exactly sacred now. Maybe that's the ideal, but in practice it's generally a legal thing. And we're supposed to have separation of church and state, right?
I would argue that the definition just be expanded to include any two people who wish to marry. The system is already set up to handle two-party marriages. If nothing else, the need to revamp the entire system to account for marriages between three or more persons would make it unlikely to get very far. (Benefits, tax laws, etc.)
Yes, I know lots of poly people, Onyx. Those relationships take LOADS of work, and the more people involved, the more that can go wrong.
ANYWAY...why should the church and religion in general have to be involved? If you have a problem with gay marriage, I can see that being an issue if the couple wants to get married in YOUR church and you don't believe that way, but otherwise, why should it be anybody else's business?
ANYWAY...why should the church and religion in general have to be involved? If you have a problem with gay marriage, I can see that being an issue if the couple wants to get married in YOUR church and you don't believe that way, but otherwise, why should it be anybody else's business?
I wonder what those Mormons with 8 wives do about custody of the kids if they split up? As bad as 2 person custody battles are, I can only imagine the legal hoops people would have to jump through if 3+ person marriages were legal.
I think as long as everybody involved is an adult and is willing then poly unions should be recognized by the government (even if they don't call it "marriage"). But that's all beside the point.
What I really want to say is that I totally understand where you're coming from, Prof. I student teach and I'm really sick of always having to remind my kids not to use "gay" as an insult and that changing it to "That's so homosexual" won't cut it either. I agree with this decision, especially if rasist and sexist bots are already discouraged.
What I really want to say is that I totally understand where you're coming from, Prof. I student teach and I'm really sick of always having to remind my kids not to use "gay" as an insult and that changing it to "That's so homosexual" won't cut it either. I agree with this decision, especially if rasist and sexist bots are already discouraged.
I agree it's kinda untenable in Western society, but poly marriages happen in some countries and are culturally appropriate. Africa for instance. It just comes down to what's right for who and being flexible and open minded enough to accept that. I've just never understood why some people don't get it.
Am I right in thinking that there already is some sort of ceremony available for gay couples? I'm sure I heard somewhere they could be blessed publicly, although unfortunately, they wouldn't have any legal security.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar