Gay community

[Guest]

2 hours ago, frangar said:

As sadly this topic now has strayed so far off topic I suspect the OP has quite understandably given up on the fossils on the forum perhaps it’s time I asked what people think of Polyamorous relationships….this is speaking as someone that’s in closed triad….

 

As long as all parties consent, then there isnt a problem is there?

[mrsmelly]

12 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

When it gets to over 74 genders, I think we can safely assume that it's a spectrum, not (to coin a phrase) a position, and that therefore everybody is slightly different from everyone else, and that it doesn't matter much, or affect an individual person in any way whatsoever unless they are looking for a sexual partner. Personally, I've never felt the need to ask an acquaintance about their gender and can't see why I ever would. And as orientation can change over time, it's not useful information for future reference. It's more use if they tell you they're vegetarian, as you have to cook differently for them - you don't have to treat them any differently if they're number 23 or 62 on the list above.

As a young hetrosexual bloke in the 1970s and being in Singapore at one time and other exotic places I can assure you mistakes can be easily made ( my mate told me ) after a few beers.........................the trick is to leave the realy pretty ones alone.

[nicknorman]

Bit behind the drag curve on this one, but I’ll just mention that I am a homosexual bloke with a husband. I rather resent being lumped into some manufactured group that includes lesbian, bisexuals, transgender and those who are unsure/sitting on the fence. I am not like them. Unfortunately Stonewall, who were originally a pioneering lobby group for the poofs, have now been taken over by the transgender lobby. I have no problem with people who are transgender but I do object to attempts to silence any debate on the concomitant issues of women’s rights/safety. I hate cancel culture. So for the time being I resent Stonewall. I also think that changing gender is not something to be taken lightly and I am concerned that it could be a young person’s fad.
 

Being faddishly gay is easily reversible. Taking hormones and having surgery to change gender is not easily reversible.

[mrsmelly]

4 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Bit behind the drag curve on this one, but I’ll just mention that I am a homosexual bloke with a husband. I rather resent being lumped into some manufactured group that includes lesbian, bisexuals, transgender and those who are unsure/sitting on the fence. I am not like them. Unfortunately Stonewall, who were originally a pioneering lobby group for the poofs, have now been taken over by the transgender lobby. I have no problem with people who are transgender but I do object to attempts to silence any debate on the concomitant issues of women’s rights/safety. I hate cancel culture. So for the time being I resent Stonewall. I also think that changing gender is not something to be taken lightly and I am concerned that it could be a young person’s fad.
 

Being faddishly gay is easily reversible. Taking hormones and having surgery to change gender is not easily reversible.

My next door neighbour and his husband say exactly the same, it winds them up no end.

[Guest]

Edit - ignore, Ive re read your post a couple of times and think I get it.

 

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by M_JG

[nicknorman]

And you all missed my drag curve pun! Shame on you!

On 05/09/2023 at 10:59, kris88 said:

Look into Ada Lovelace and the anyalytical  engine. I think she is credited as being the first programmer. 

Today Professor Andy Hopper arrived at the gliding club in his plane to go mountain biking in the Cairngorms. He is Professor / Head of department of Computer Science at Cambridge University. You probably don’t get anyone more erudite than him. So I asked him who first invented the idea of a computer programme, Lovelace or Turing. I received a lengthy reply but the gist of it was that it wasn’t Turing. He says Lovelace. And predating Turing was the American, von Neumann. So looks like Bletchley Park are rather over egging Turing in that respect. Still a rather clever bloke though.

 

The other groundbreaking thing that Ada did was to realise that the numbers did not only have to be numbers, they could represent other things too.

Edited September 7, 2023 by nicknorman

[kris88]

5 hours ago, nicknorman said:

And you all missed my drag curve pun! Shame on you!

Today Professor Andy Hopper arrived at the gliding club in his plane to go mountain biking in the Cairngorms. He is Professor / Head of department of Computer Science at Cambridge University. You probably don’t get anyone more erudite than him. So I asked him who first invented the idea of a computer programme, Lovelace or Turing. I received a lengthy reply but the gist of it was that it wasn’t Turing. He says Lovelace. And predating Turing was the American, von Neumann. So looks like Bletchley Park are rather over egging Turing in that respect. Still a rather clever bloke though.

 

The other groundbreaking thing that Ada did was to realise that the numbers did not only have to be numbers, they could represent other things too.

See i told you so. But you didn’t believe me?
The analytical engine almost bankrupt the country at the time. I believe they have the small version that was built as a demonstration in the science museum. 

[nicknorman]

2 hours ago, kris88 said:

See i told you so. But you didn’t believe me?
The analytical engine almost bankrupt the country at the time. I believe they have the small version that was built as a demonstration in the science museum. 

I didn’t believe or disbelieve you. You created doubt in my mind which is why I asked probably the most erudite person in the country when the opportunity arose. Turns out he agreed with you.
 

Being a gracious winner of a debate is a good look, and the reverse is also true.

[IanD]

10 hours ago, nicknorman said:

And you all missed my drag curve pun! Shame on you!

Today Professor Andy Hopper arrived at the gliding club in his plane to go mountain biking in the Cairngorms. He is Professor / Head of department of Computer Science at Cambridge University. You probably don’t get anyone more erudite than him. So I asked him who first invented the idea of a computer programme, Lovelace or Turing. I received a lengthy reply but the gist of it was that it wasn’t Turing. He says Lovelace. And predating Turing was the American, von Neumann. So looks like Bletchley Park are rather over egging Turing in that respect. Still a rather clever bloke though.

 

The other groundbreaking thing that Ada did was to realise that the numbers did not only have to be numbers, they could represent other things too.

 

Nobody's claiming that Turing came up with the idea of a programmable machine (computer) or that it could be instructed what to do by a list of instructions (program) -- indeed you could go back to the Jacquard loom or Babbage's Analytical Engine for this, long before Lovelace (who of course met and was inspired by Babbage) and von Neumann.

 

His insight was *what* such a machine -- even one with a few simple basic commands -- could be programmed to do, which turns out to be almost anything if you throw enough computing power and memory capacity at it. That's what his 1936 paper 'On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem [Decision Problem]' is about -- and yes I've read it, and it's hard work even for someone with a scientific background... 😉

 

From https://www.turing.ethz.ch/alan-turing/work-on-computability.html

 

"In 1936, Turing published his most important theoretical work, 'On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem [Decision Problem]'. This ground-breaking article described the abstract digital computing machine now referred to simply as the universal Turing machine, on which the modern electronic computer is based.

Turing's fundamental idea of a universal stored-programme computing machine was promoted in the United States by John von Neumann and in England by Max Newman, and soon after the end of the Second World War there were several groups, including Turing's own in London, planning to build an electronic stored-programme universal digital computer -a Turing machine in hardware (see the section 'Computer pioneer')."

 

Von Neumann did many things, but he conceived what is now called a Von Neumann architecture (stored-program machine with unified address space for program and data) in the 1940s, long after Turing's paper:

 

https://www.britannica.com/technology/von-Neumann-machine

 

I've spent a lot of time looking into all this over the years after finding out -- after Colossus was made public -- what my FiL did during the war but never told anyone about... 😉

 

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by IanD

[nicknorman]

17 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Nobody's claiming that Turing came up with the idea of a programmable machine (computer) 

 

Well I think Bletchley Park museum are claiming this, hence the origin of the discussion. But Andy Hopper agrees with your other points, he said “There were about 5 separate groups who all built the “first computer””! But a lot of it was shrouded in military secrecy, at the time at least.

 

He also applauded Turing for his “Turing test”.
 

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by nicknorman

[IanD]

Just now, nicknorman said:

Well I think Bletchley Park museum are claiming this, hence the origin of the discussion. But Andy Hopper agrees with your other points, he said “There were about 5 separate groups who all built the “first computer””!

 

He also applauded Turing for his “Turing test”.

 

I expect they're not because they know about this stuff, but that doesn't mean somebody less knowledgeable -- e.g. a journalist, or a CWDF poster -- hasn't misinterpreted/misunderstood what they said... 😉

[nicknorman]

14 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I expect they're not because they know about this stuff, but that doesn't mean somebody less knowledgeable -- e.g. a journalist, or a CWDF poster -- hasn't misinterpreted/misunderstood what they said... 😉

No, this was the impression I got when we visited there last month. Of course it's always possible I misinterpreted what they had written but I noticed it because it was something I wasn't aware of, and read it at least twice. Turns out there is a good reason why I wasn't aware of it!

Edited September 8, 2023 by nicknorman

[IanD]

In case anyone *really" wants more information, and understands the abstract mathematic logic involved...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing's_proof

 

"Turing followed this proof with two others. The second and third both rely on the first. All rely on his development of typewriter-like "computing machines" that obey a simple set of rules and his subsequent development of a "universal computing machine". "

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine

 

"In computer science, a universal Turing machine (UTM) is a Turing machine capable of computing any computable sequence,^[1] as described by Alan Turing in his seminal paper "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem". Common sense might say that a universal machine is impossible, but Turing proves that it is possible.^[2]

 

Alan Turing introduced the idea of such a machine in 1936–1937. This principle is considered to be the origin of the idea of a stored-program computer used by John von Neumann in 1946 for the "Electronic Computing Instrument" that now bears von Neumann's name: the von Neumann architecture.^[5]"

Edited September 8, 2023 by IanD

[The Welsh Cruiser]

I'm straight myself, despite having considered the possibility of being otherwise, twice in my life. I know there is more than one 'gay lifestyle' but the one I've experienced (from a slight distance) knocks the spots off the young free and single straight hetero lifestyle.

 

I felt slightly jealous on occasions.   

[manxmike]

Quite a few of my friends are gay - do I care?

I do a lot in the theatre - on stage and back-stage, the theatre seems to attract a lot of gay people - do I care?

I am actually quite jealous of a lot of my gay friends, they usually have excellent taste, their homes are wonderfully decorated, their taste in furniture is amazing, their ability to make something drab appear attractive is excellentl - yes I do care, they are good friends and often have the most wonderful way of putting people in their place whilst seeming to be as polite as anything. They often have the most dreadful gossipy tales that are hysterical to listen to.

To be honest I prefer their company to that of a lot of my "straight" friends who just want to talk about football and swill vast amounts of rather poor quality beer.

Please don't get me started on black, female, labour, ex-politicians and whether they should be shot !

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, manxmike said:

Please don't get me started on black, female, labour, ex-politicians and whether they should be shot !

 

Only the ones with the mathematical abilities of an Amoeba.

[Machpoint005]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Only the ones with the mathematical abilities of an Amoeba.

 

I don't think that's what Hester was referring to. 

 

Perhaps you know better, courtesy of your vast experience of racist misogynist wingnuttery.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Only the ones with the mathematical abilities of an Amoeba.

I don't think you should discriminate. The last half dozen of chancellors of the exchequer appear to have  been innumerate and economically illiterate, whether they were black, white or went to Eton. Why anyone would pick on a common or garden MP instead of them beats me. Except, of course, most of them were millionaires and Abbott wasn't.

Edited to add: Sorry, I should have said right wing millionaires.

Edited March 13 by Arthur Marshall

[ditchcrawler]

I don't normally look at the political section but it looks as if I have slid into it.

[Machpoint005]

40 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I don't normally look at the political section but it looks as if I have slid into it.

 

Only because someone who should have known better referenced current affairs, slightly obliquely. 

 

[blackrose]

On 07/09/2023 at 17:51, Arthur Marshall said:

 And as orientation can change over time, it's not useful information for future reference. 

 

Can it? So how come we're always being told that it's not a choice, that people are born a certain sexual orientation?

 

 

If on the other hand you meant that gender identity rather than [sexual] orientation can change, here there may be an element of choice, but one's gender doesn't change over time by itself.

 

Edited March 14 by blackrose

[cuthound]

12 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I don't normally look at the political section but it looks as if I have slid into it.

 

Slid into it or accidentally stepped on it? 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

10 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

Can it? So how come we're always being told that it's not a choice, that people are born a certain sexual orientation?

 

 

If on the other hand you meant that gender identity rather than [sexual] orientation can change, here there may be an element of choice, but one's gender doesn't change over time by itself.

 

If you believe everything you read in Wikipedia, you're going to be in a real mess. Also if you believe what "we're always being told". Sexual orientation isn't binary, everyone is somewhere on a random distribution curve. This means most people stick around the orientation they start off with, but some can happily switch from being apparently permanently hetero to equally permanently homosexual. Other options are available...

Personally, I can't see it's ever anyone's business apart from the person concerned. I suspect those who either get hot under the collar about it, or are over interested in the subject, have psychological problems of their own they should contend with before they start pontificating about other people's lifestyles!

ETA The last sentence, to revert to the rather odd post that woke this thread up again, and Alan's even odder response, applies also to those who find racism amusing.

Edited March 14 by Arthur Marshall

[blackrose]

26 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If you believe everything you read in Wikipedia, you're going to be in a real mess. Also if you believe what "we're always being told". Sexual orientation isn't binary, everyone is somewhere on a random distribution curve. This means most people stick around the orientation they start off with, but some can happily switch from being apparently permanently hetero to equally permanently homosexual. Other options are available...

Personally, I can't see it's ever anyone's business apart from the person concerned. I suspect those who either get hot under the collar about it, or are over interested in the subject, have psychological problems of their own they should contend with before they start pontificating about other people's lifestyles!

ETA The last sentence, to revert to the rather odd post that woke this thread up again, and Alan's even odder response, applies also to those who find racism amusing.

 

It's not about believing Wikipedia, I only posted that as a reference, but if you choose not to go along with the latest knowledge from experts in the field that's up to you. Also I never said sexual orientation was binary.

 

The people who are always telling us that sexual orientation isn't a choice and people are born that way are generally people from the LGBTQ+ community themselves as well as their supporters, so I guess you also disagree with them, which seems odd for someone who ostensibly tries to appear so woke. 

 

I actually think you're conflating sexual orientation with gender and confusing the two. They're different things.

Edited March 14 by blackrose

[IanD]

43 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

It's not about believing Wikipedia, I only posted that as a reference, but if you choose not to go along with the latest knowledge from experts in the field that's up to you. Also I never said sexual orientation was binary.

 

The people who are always telling us that sexual orientation isn't a choice and people are born that way are generally people from the LGBTQ+ community themselves as well as their supporters, so I guess you also disagree with them, which seems odd for someone who ostensibly tries to appear so woke. 

 

I actually think you're conflating sexual orientation with gender and confusing the two. They're different things.

 

Actually *you're* now the one misrepresenting what the LGBTQ+ community think -- which is that for *some* people sexual orientation/gender isn't really a conscious choice, it's basically the way they are, and is difficult/impossible to change by "re-education" which is why they push back against this. However for others it can change during their lifetime, in either direction -- or back and forth. It's like all the nature/nurture discussions, it turns out that there isn't one single explanation.

 

As so often this is a complex situation to which the answer is "it depends" -- as in all the discussions about sex/gender, about which much what is said is also misinformed or just plain wrong... 😞 

 

P.S. This isn't just another "I know all about this, I read it on the Internet" polemic, it's an opinion founded on several long face-to-face discussions with various non-cis people who actually know what they're talking about -- and I certainly didn't understand the situation before doing this, a lot of what I thought I knew turned out to be wrong -- or at least, not entirely correct... 😉 

Edited March 14 by IanD