Should Scientists Date People Who Believe Astrology?

YourAstrologer writes "Wired Science asks: Should scientists date people who believe in astrology? Apparently, the argument is quite complex. Astrology is sort of a flawed mental shortcut for understanding the world, but so is disregarding someone because of their spiritual beliefs. Women are inundated with astrological nonsense from fashion magazines, so it is normative for them to believe it even if they are otherwise highly logical. Smart people can convince themselves of silly things."

Which method?

[Bloke down the pub (861787)]

Which method - radiocarbon or by slicing thenm and counting the rings?

Re:Which method?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286)]

We are humans. Flawed machines. Human females deserve you treat them as equals. Maybe then you'll get a date.

The preceding was the only part of the parent post that shows any resemblance of intelligent thought. There is a big difference between a non falsifiable belief system, and one that does claim to make very specific predictions. I have no problem with a belief system that can not be proven or disproven and causes people to lead better lives. I do have a problem with people that believe that human behavior is influenced or predetermined by objects, but reject any knowledge about these same objects that was scientificly determined.

And yes, I did break up with a girlfriend because of this.

Re:Which method?

[langelgjm (860756)]

Religion generally falsifies itself.

First, contradiction is not falsification. If I say "grass is green" and "grass is purple," nothing has been falsified, and the contradiction does not imply that both statements are false. Falsification requires some contradictory observation, not just a contradictory statement. Contradiction might say something about the logical consistency of a set of beliefs, but in itself says nothing about their actual veracity.

The Old Testament does so in the 1st chapter where there are two contradictory genesis stories.

By "1st chapter" I assume you mean first and second chapters. The stories are obviously contradictory (the attempts of literalists to reconcile them notwithstanding). However, my understanding is that they probably came from different original sources and were incorporated into the single text of Genesis later on, and that the compilers weren't so concerned with smoothing out the differences as simply recording the various stories. Trying to read the stories as history when they weren't written as history is obviously going to cause problems.

Finally, you link to "Zeitgeist: The Movie." I have not seen it, but from what I understand there is a great deal of criticism surrounding the arguments made in the film. According to Wikipedia, it argues in favor of the "Jesus myth hypothesis," in spite of the fact that "Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion." So I'm not sure that "Zeitgeist" unequivocally qualifies as an "excellent and brief treatment of this subject." Personally, I'd recommend John Collin's Introduction to the Hebrew Bible [amazon.com] for a strong historical-critical overview of the Old Testament.

Re:Which method?

[rubycodez (864176)]

treat them as equals? walk into work, pound them on the back and yell, "hows it hangin', asshole? feel good?, well ya look like shit" Nah, maybe should treat them better than an equal would be treated.

Re:Which method?

[Hognoxious (631665)]

given that many MALE scientists believe in imaginary superbeings that were made up by some random illiterate guy some thousands of years ago

George Lucas isn't that old.

Re:Which method?

[snowraver1 (1052510)]

My Girlfriend of five years has some spiritual belielfs (Stuff like Tarot cards, runes, spirit guides, etc) and although I don't believe in that kind of stuff, if she wants to, who really cares? She knows that it's not my thing, so she does it with her mom. It's harmless stuff, and really, bogus or not, there is some good advice that can come out of it.

If she were to start paying for that kind of stuff, I'd start having a problem, but until then, she can do whatever makes her happy.

Re:Which method?

[2short (466733)]

Astrology is a flawed mental shortcut for NOT understanding the world.

Astrology is not a more-flawed model; it's not a model at all.

Scientific models account for the evidence available to them; they provide correct predictions over their domain, within calculable error.

"Like astrology, Newtonian physics is a model that has been proven wrong. I'm convinced that it is a more useful model than astrology, but that's a matter of opinion."

It is not a matter of opinion; it is indisputable. The entirety of modern engineering is built on Newtonian mechanics, which has never been proved wrong, because it is not wrong. Newtonian mechanics describes how things in the physical world behave with extraordinary precision. There are other considerably more complex, harder to use models that describe certain extreme case with more precision, notably quantum mechanics and relativity. None of these models are "right"; they are more or less precise, and more or less useful in different cases. Sorry, but the "Newtonian mechanics proven wrong" meme bugs the hell out of me almost as much as astrology.

Astrology is not a model, and can't be proven wrong as it is not evidence based, and makes no testable predictions.

Re:Which method? -- How about being well informed?

[Bloke down the pub (861787)]

What emerged was a type of psychological langauge framework that describes how certain planetary positions influence living systems including people and animals, possibly through DNA influences at the quantum level.

My bullshit meter just redlined!

Re:Which method? -- How about being well informed?

[dubl-u (51156)]

possibly through DNA influences at the quantum level [...] . Ignoramouses....

One, it's "ignoramus". Next time try "idiot"; it's shorter. Two, you should take your own advice, and read some actual science books. Ones with math. And problem sets. "Possibly through DNA influences at the quantum level" indeed.

I have had only one reading done in my life which was very interesting and informative.

And you know why that is? It has zero to do with planets, and everything to do with the complexity of the human mind. Which you are, alas, just blowing on by.

The astrologers I've talked to often have a deep intuitive understanding of human psychology, and so can say some pretty insightful things. But all the planet mumbo jumbo? That's the functional equivalent of ink blot tests. With a little structure and a little random noise, you can unlock the subconscious skills that were there all along.

Many are also skilled cold readers [wikipedia.org], which can give the impression of wisdom and knowledge without actually knowing anything. They need not be doing this intentionally. FBI profilers also don't know jack [newyorker.com], but are apparently sincere.

And of course, astrology subjects are unwittingly complicit in this. Confirmation bias [wikipedia.org] plays a big role, as do other cognitive biases [wikipedia.org]. Derren Brown, a UK magician, did an astrological reading for three different groups of 5 people. After getting birthdates and one personal object each, he gave them a 4-page written document about their personality, history, and ambitions. 80% gave very high marks for accuracy, and were shocked at how detailed and personal the reading was. One person thought he had somehow gained access to her private journal. At the end, he revealed he had given everybody the exact same reading.

So I'd say that you should take your own advice, and learn something about the topic before running your mouth. If people think a fake reading is real 80% of the thime, then a personal anecdote about a supposed good reading tells us bupkis. And that's true even when somebody sprinkles some sciency mumbo-jumbo on top.

Re:Which method?

[Imsdal (930595)]

I await with anticipation your testing model for this hypothesis.

Why would the burden of proof be with the guy who refuses to believe the religious crap? For astrology, crystals, healing, tarot cards and the idiotic things some women believe, most everyone agrees that it's all nonsense and that the burden of proof is on them. For the idiotic things that some men believe, i.e. organized religion, the burden of proof is on the atheists? WTF?

Re:Which method?

[Alpha830RulZ (939527)]

You seem to have missed a course in logic. Atheism is simply not believing in a god. It is comparable to you not believing that there is an invisible pink aardvark sitting in the chair next to you. According to your logic, you bear the burden of proof for proving to the rest of us that the chair is indeed empty. We're waiting...

It's always amazing to me that you superstitious folks seem to think that you get to define my beliefs. I don't try to tell you what Christians believe. Please have the same courtesy.

Re:Which method?

[The Great Pretender (975978)]

That's a short queue on /.

Just lie about your birthdate and see what happens

[spineboy (22918)]

One of my ex girlfriends was all into making my "chart" to see what was rising in what sign, and all sorts of other BS. So I lied - told her I was born on Feb 30 (there is no Feb 30 - ever). Got a "reading" of all sorts of things that she thought I was like - "See it fits you"
Then told there is no Feb 30, was born on March 2 (another lie) - got a similar reading (cause my stars were still closely aligned).

Finally told her my real birthday was in August. She got mad and didn't want to do any more horroscope crap around me again, AND we still went out for over a year, before broke up w/ her. She wanted to plop out some kids, and I wanted grad school - so I said later.

Mesg is - just put up with it. It's a harmless thing they do, as long as they aren't making serious life decisions because of it. If they won't buy a house, cause the stars are wrong, or want to buy 10,000 shares of a stock 'cause of the stars, then dump them.

Re:Which method?

[Rei (128717)]

A) The phrase is "cue up", not "queue up".
B) While the Wired article wasn't focused on men vs. women, Slashdot naturally had to put that twist on it. I mean, what kind of scientist would be a woman? What a silly concept! (As though huge numbers of men don't believe in all sorts of kooky things. No, it's apparently only weak-minded women who fall for pop-culture nonsense.)

Yes, more women believe in astrology then men -- but not by a huge margin. Women are a mere 5% more likely [rickross.com] than the population as a whole to believe in astrology. On the other hand, men are 9% more likely than women to believe in UFOs [foxnews.com]. And why stop at gender? There's a much stronger correlation between being a Democrat and believing in astrology (14%) than being a woman and believing in astrology. Should we have framed the question in terms of political parties? Was the goal to be insulting?

Lastly, while we're talking about pseudoscientific delusions designed to make people feel better, they give a free pass to people who believe silly things that are "religious beliefs". As a society, we always defer to that. But why? A delusion is a delusion. It's not as though religious beliefs are harmless or anything, judging from history -- quite the opposite, really. Why are we saying it's okay to believe as they do -- to think you have an imaginary friend in the sky who loves you very much, and when you die, you get magically transported to a happy place to live with him -- simply because there are so many of them in the US?

Yes, I dared mentioned the elephant in the room.

Sure, provided they are hot

[Registered Coward v2 (447531)]

But rememeber, you can fix a lot of things but you cant fix stupid

Re:Sure, provided they are hot

[sm62704 (957197)]

You can't fix stupid but you CAN fix ignorant. Thinking someone is stupid because they believe something patently false is stupid.

Re:Sure, provided they are hot

[gnick (1211984)]

No, it's arrogant.

Sounds like perfectly normal behavior. For a Leo...

One man's "stupid"...

[Mathinker (909784)]

Actually, I'd find that a rather fascinating, creative delusion.

I can think of lots of different types of "stupid" and my guess is that you probably wouldn't find all of them stupid. Compare:

1. A mentally retarded person who is optimistic and happy. Seeing a pretty flower makes him happy even though he has no idea what it is called, or how it grew where he found it.

2. A genius level intellect who is always unhappy and irritated. There is nothing he can see which could make him as happy as person #1.

I find them both stupid in kind of orthogonal ways, and I am convinced there are many more dimensions of possible stupidity (your example being kind of stupid in the "reality" dimension, I suppose)....

Yes.

[Sir.Cracked (140212)]

Beggars can't be choosers....

This...IS....SLASHDOT!

[Internet Ronin (919897)]

Seeing as this is Slashdot, lemme just say, you should probably take what you can get. Astrology, piercings, fetishes, just be glad a girl's talking to you and not asking you to do her math homework. Seriously though, sometimes breasts are big enough to make other things not important.

Re:This...IS....SLASHDOT!

[Registered Coward v2 (447531)]

Seriously though, sometimes breasts are big enough to make other things not important.


Sometimes?

Re:This...IS....SLASHDOT!

[Mikkeles (698461)]

Yes, "sometimes"; else you may be faced with this [dailymail.co.uk]!

Astrology is just plain wrong

[Malevolent Tester (1201209)]

As a Marxist, I have no time for pseudoscientific concepts that claim to explain the workings of human nature in their entirety while offering no evidence or falsifiability.

Offense

[Stormcrow309 (590240)]

I have to take offense to this. Couple of years ago, the local paper's astrological peice listed for my birthday, 'If today is your birthday, you gonna get lucky today.' Now, yes I was dating the lady who was incharge of editing that section at the time; but by God, it was correct.

Ahh...

[nickos (91443)]

so is disregarding someone because of their spiritual beliefs

There's your problem - a growing number of people are realising it's fine to disregard someone if they believe in supernatural nonsense. Especially if they're beliefs include doing nasty things to women, homosexuals and non-believers.

Astrology != Spirituality or Religion

[glpierce (731733)]

Astrology differs from most religion and "spirituality" in one very important way (especially to scientists): It is testable. While there is no way to prove or disprove most spiritual things (including the existence of any god or the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God), we know that astrology is 100% wrong. It has been studied scientifically (because it makes testable predictions and claims), and the results always come back the same.

Try this page for a start:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html [badastronomy.com]

Re:Astrology != Spirituality or Religion

[Jonny_eh (765306)]

And here's Carl Sagan explaining Astrology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iunr4B4wfDA [youtube.com]

Carl Sagan was the best.

lets get one thing straight

[rucs_hack (784150)]

As a scientist I am likely to disregard most attempts at serious conversation on the subject of astrology.

That said, I would not, and I believe, nor would any other normal scientific single chap, turn away a hot chick just because she was pondering my star sign or wanting to read my palm. In most cases It's just another vector into a conversation anyway.

Oh man...

[o'reor (581921)]

From the comments on TFA:

check this 68k mac software does statistics on astrology.

http://dragonflypower.com/HSReadme.htm [dragonflypower.com]

(note, this is not even on /. !)

Which begs the question: Should anybody date someone who recommends taking a look at a 68k Mac software in 2008 ?

Multiple Choice

[rueger (210566)]

Women are inundated with astrological nonsense from fashion magazines, so it is normative for them to believe it even if they are otherwise highly logical.

a) Stupid
b) sexist
c) offensive
d) all of the above

Re:Multiple Choice

[JohnFluxx (413620)]

> Also, it makes the false assumption that more scientists are men than women.

Uh, most scientists /are/ men.

Mental shortcut?

[MrNemesis (587188)]

Only if you define a shortcut as a much shorter route that gets you to the wrong destination.

As an often-scientific athiest, I'm prepared to date people from any different religions, as long as we're both content to let one anothers belief systems not interfere with our love life. But I have difficulty talking to anyone who believes a few miniscule globules of rock millions of miles away can effect something as complex as our personalities and day-to-day activities. Same for alot of /.'ers I imagine - you can appreciate someone who's put a lot of thought into their belief system and come to their own conclusion and is happy with it and the way it helps them live their life - systems of belief are an entirely human construct and are thus irrational by default :) But people who have convinced themselves that astrology exists and then try to subvert physics with claptrap about subtle variations in gravitic attractions and how it aligns iron particles in your blood which short-circuit synapses into taking certain descisions? All without a shred of proof? All without a shred of evidence, even? You're a moron and I'm incapable of respecting your intellect.

Yes, I realise it's not their whole personality (don't get me wrong, I've met hundreds of lovely people who happened to believe in something ridiculous), but to me it's just like talking to someone with LIAR tattoed across their forehead and taking everything they say at face value.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html [badastronomy.com] /asbestos long johns

P.S. A prize of fifty points and a bowl of raspberry jelly to the first person who correctly guesses my relationship status :)

How to find a spouse

[romanm (178782)]

There's an old Bosnian joke about how Mujo decided which girl he should marry. He discussed about it later with his friend Haso:
H: I heard you got married. Congratulations! How did you decide?
M: Well, this was not easy. I had three candidates and I conducted a test. I asked the first one:
      "What's 2+2?".
      She said "4".
      I though to myslelf, that's good, the woman is smart.
      The second one said: "Well, it depends. It can be 4, but sometimes it can also be 3 or 5."
      That's even better, the woman is cunning.
      I asked the third one the same question and she says "I don't care. Whatever my husband says it is".
      I thought to myself, this woman surely will respect her husband. This is good.
H: So, which one did you take?
M: Oh. The one with big tits, of course.

I don't think that scientists are THAT different to other men.

We are all perfectly flawed people

[mlwmohawk (801821)]

I am an atheist, proud and true. I do not believe in *anything* that can't be proved. Unfortunately, I have to accept a lot of things as "probably true" barring evidence to the contrary. My wife is a catholic who reads the horoscope, go figure.

It is a good marriage. Every now and then, however, when we talk about those who have passed away or deeper meanings of life or what have you, it forces a reconciliation between philosophies. Sometimes a fight, sometimes a a discussion, either way, it can work.

So, should scientists date "believers of things?" Sure, but you have to be ready to "accept" the person "as-is." If you can't do that then it won't work.

Oh my.

[TrebleJunkie (208060)]

Guys, if any women are actually reading this, we are collectively sooooo not ever getting laid.

Astrology for scientists.

[3-State Bit (225583)]

Astrology for scientists.

1. Sequence your DNA.
2. Compress it and take the hex checksum. You can use any compression scheme and any checksum algo (but use a real one, don't just make one up ad hoc) to get the hex result, it doesn't really matter. However, you have to go with the first one you pick, you can't pick a different one just because you didn't like the results.
3. Take the last hex digit of your checksum that isn't a C, D, E or F. (If your whole checksum consists of just these letters, add 1 to your compressed DNA and checksum again (repeating if necessary). Use the following guide to picking an astrological sign:
   • 0 - Aries [wikipedia.org]
   • 1 - Taurus [wikipedia.org]
   • 2 - Gemini [wikipedia.org]
   • 3 - Cancer [wikipedia.org]
   • 4 - Leo [wikipedia.org]
   • 5 - Virgo [wikipedia.org]
   • 6 - Libra [wikipedia.org]
   • 7 - Scorpio [wikipedia.org]
   • 8 - Sagittarius [wikipedia.org]
   • 9 - Capricorn [wikipedia.org]
   • A - Aquarius [wikipedia.org]
   • B - Pisces [wikipedia.org]
4. Next, read the linked Wikipedia article (and any mainstream sources too if you want, for example in newspapers and magazines), and:
5. Start acting in accordance with your selected personality. That's it!

Now for some good news: by following the above steps, you will develop a mathematically sound personality that society actually needs, and, more to the point, every one of the linked personalities gets laid and so will you. Study your personality, make the set of behaviors etc. your own, and date only people who have an astrological sign that complements the one you've chosen using the above steps! When faced with a choice, read the astrology section of a trusted newspaper, and just do whatever is prescibed for your chosen personality. The only caveat (and really it is the only one) is not to mention your true birthday, only one that fits in with your chosen sign, if anyone asks. This is just to keep from having to explain the science behind your choice every time you mention it. If the relationship gets to be very serious, just invent a story about a botched birth certificate, for why your identification doesn't show your "true" birthday... As with nicknames, people will understand that you have a different "official" birthday.

FAQ.

Why is this better than a traditional horoscope?
The traditional way of determining astrological signs for selecting a personality is flawed because there is an unequal distribution of births by month. (It's not the only thing true about birth months, incidentally! Check out these studies linking lifespan and month of birth [google.com]!) Also, your physical birth month will be a function of, how can I put this delicately, your parents' mating habits, so it's less than scientific...

But won't twins have the same checksum?
Duh. It's an astrological sign. You know, normally based on birthdate...

But won't people cheat and just keep picking different checksum schemes until they get the "

Re:Well

[garett_spencley (193892)]

I would give Astrology some merit if it weren't for the countless scientific studies that consistently found it to be without merit. Astrology, like Psychics, employs simple psychological tricks in order to get the believer to believe that the horoscope applies to them, when in fact what it says could really be applied to anyone.

Astrology isn't "spiritualism". We're not talking about religion or believing in a higher power. We're talking about parlor tricks. Even if the alignment of the stars and the planets did have an effect on the world (and it would be ignorant not to investigate the possibility, I'm certainly not saying that science has proven otherwise), astrology certainly has not demonstrated any such phenomenon.

Re:Well

[YttriumOxide (837412)]

I've heard the whole "tidal effect" thing so many times and it really does annoy the hell out of me.

I'll let you do the maths - but just to get you started, compare the force of gravity exerted on you by Mount Everest to the amount exerted on you by Saturn. Then compare either of those to the amount exerted on you by the moon, and then by the sun. After that, tell me if you really think the distant planets could have ANY meaningful effect.

Or, if you want to think about things other than just gravity, take a look at the different kinds of things that actually reach you from the planets. In general, far MORE of these same things come from the much further distant stars, yet those are never accounted for.

That's the short version, but in essence, I think it's completely fair to say that astrology is complete and utter bunk.

Re:Well

[MightyYar (622222)]

I can see that, for example, babies born in the Winter might tend to have a different personality to babies born in the Summer.

Ahh, your horoscope would be totally off if you changed hemispheres! :)

Re:Well

[Hal_Porter (817932)]

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm [ctinquiry.org]

Here let me refer to a very interesting letter, recorded by Helen Dukas, which Einstein wrote to a child who asked him whether scientists prayed.

I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive

His 'spirit' is the actual laws that govern the universe as far as I can tell. In physics it would be a complete, consistent theory of everything. We don't have this yet, but we could possibly discover (and you'll note I didn't say invent) it. We do have various approximations of this uber theory though, relativity for big stuff and quantum mechanics for small. It's an odd idea actually - it reminds me of Plato's Theory of Forms [wikipedia.org]. By analogy, the spirit would be the True theory, and our current approximations would shadows of it. All of which is obvious very science friendly.

Re:Well

[CrazyBrett (233858)]

Spirituality is not compatible with the scientific method.

No, but it's not inherently incompatible either; they deal with nonintersecting domains. Science is concerned with that which can be empirically tested. Spirituality is handy for things that can't.

When people try to apply "belief" to things which can be empirically tested, however, that's not spirituality, it's stupid.

Re:Science is 24/7

[mr_josh (1001605)]

No, I don't think you're a bigot. I think you're someone who has turned science in to a belief system because of your passion for the idea that humanity is "advancing". Humanity, and all organic systems, is changing. We don't get better, we get different. You're out to find the path to true enlightenment, that's cool, everyone is, through spirituality or science, it's all the same passion for finding real happiness. It's all just driven by curiosity and an ingrained inherent motivation to be "better" than what we are. Something that, realistically, just doesn't happen. Better is relative and counts humanity as significantly more important than the natural world around us. That is, of course, a very close-minded, human, non-scientific point of view. The concept of something being better -rather than different- is unfortunately nihilistic but at the same time, serves the concept of evolution much more accurately than does some passion-fueled rant that seems to scream, "If we're ever going to get anywhere, we have to drop organized religion." I assure you, friend, we ARE getting somewhere. Mankind, all life, doesn't sit around. It may be frustrating that you won't see it in your 85 year lifespan, but rest assured, humanity is indeed changing all the time. It may not be changing in a manner that's positive for YOU, but evolution will always give some biological group a chance in the limelight, so maybe you'll get lucky.

Re:Science is 24/7

[15Bit (940730)]

Ok, disclaimer up front - i'm a research scientist and am currently godless, so to speak.

I also have problems reconciling science and faith. It does seem to me that a profound life-defining belief in something which cannot be proved to exist is incompatible with the scientific method of a rigorous and logical evaluation of evidence to arrive at a conclusion. However, i have many friends who do seem able to reconcile this, and despite their beliefs are (by any metric) excellent scientists. Apparently the logic goes something like - god created the earth/universe etc, and made it conform to a bunch of laws. We are discovering and understanding those laws to the best of our abilities, using the curiosity that god gave us. The use of scientific method provides us with the means to do it, and its ok because god doesn't intend us to live through eternity in the mud saying to each other "oh, god did that, we don't need to know about it".

Re:Science is 24/7

[Cornflake917 (515940)]

So based on your post, Isaac Newton was not a scientist.

Re:Well

[digitig (1056110)]

There are elements to astrology that might have scientific explanations, even if the causal model provided by astrology is wrong. For example, according to astrology Leos often act as if they have something to prove. Well, in the West, Leos are usually the youngest in their school class, and at the age at which they start school that's a big difference; they're a *long* way behind their "peers" so it's hardly surprising if they learn behaviours that make them look "big". Nothing to fo with where the stars were when they were born, but (possibly) a significant observation nonetheless. Just because astrology teaches it doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

Re:What scientists should really do is.

[khallow (566160)]

It's called stereotyping. And if the characteristics being stereotyped are relevant to the judgement, say like a belief in astrology indicates some degree of ignorance, gullibility, or even stupidity, then it's not bigotry. Another example, I wouldn't let an ex-felon (especially one convicted for embezzlement or fraud) near large amounts of money in a business. It's just common sense.

Re:Oh really?

[SuperDuck (16035)]

women are easily swayed by what they read in fashion magazines.

Not married to a "fashionista", I guess?

Not any more, fortunately. She was *so* yesterday. ;-P

Re:Comtempt is not compatible with love

[erlehmann (1045500)]

I'm a person with very firm Christian beliefs.

Interesting - you believe in salvation through a holy zombie despite a total lack of explanation as to how the reanimation of dead bodies relates to human events ?

Re:Comtempt is not compatible with love

[Eli Gottlieb (917758)]

OK, let's at least get this clear: the resurrection of Jesus (you know, the fictional one) did not involve zombies. Jesus did not hunger for the flesh of the living. Instead, he actually came back to life.

We're talking Goa'uld Sarcophagus or Ancient Healing Device here, not a zombie virus.

Re:Comtempt is not compatible with love

[Dzimas (547818)]

I'm going to call you on this one. "Very firm Christian beliefs" is a meaningless motherhood statement. That little detail aside, haven't you ever found it convenient that the "right" religion is usually the one we're indoctrinated with since childhood, or the church just down the street? I suspect precious few people in somewhere like Omaha Nebraska have ever woken up one morning and realized that the Shinto study of Hatsumiyamairi is the true path to enlightenment. Nope, people get sucked into the tried and true. ;)