RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... )

RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

eulero83 -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 8:54:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, here, you are wrong. I didn't say the Theory of Evolution was wrong, just that it hasn't been proven completely. There is evidence, but there are holes and gaps. Teaching Evolution as "this is what science thinks happened" and Creation/ID as "here is another theory that others think explains it," doesn't demean either, but it also doesn't teach something as settled science when it isn't settled science. 1. creation/ID isn't a theory. 2. Evolution is a fact. That is settled science. Every step is known, then? we don't know if our universe is made of strings or loops but this doesn't invalidate quantic physics, Galileo's trasformation are the limit of lorentz's one as speed approaches 0, the fact we knew a function just in one point doesn't meant there is no function or that point we knew is not valid, it's perfectly valid in the neighbourhood of 0 now we know also other things. So what we know is known what we don't know is to be discovered but what we know to be false is false. Creatinism is proven to be false so teaching it is fraud.

njlauren -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 9:06:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux But the statement "Evolution is a fact. That is settled science" is simply never true. The National Academy of Science disagrees with you: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=28 "Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong." And yet the very first line of your quote says evolution is a theory. The oxford dictionary, fortunately removed from the perview of the National Academies, says nothing about the national academies definition. fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true: Since a theory is never proven, (only supported) it ergo cannot be a fact. Looking in the miriam webster definition of "theory" we find: the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\ : an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events Since you may not define an object in terms of itself (tautological) it seems that indeed, a fact is not a theory. A quick perusal finds no other cases where the NAS calls a theory a fact. For example the theory of gravity is, wait for it: a theory. So it seems that in our zeal to proclaim evolution a fact that the national acadmies makes a special exception for the word fact. Thereby removing themselves from the debate. Gravity is accepted as fact, even though it is a 'theory'. Gravity, like evolution, has gaps in understanding, as there is with all the fields that make up the forces in the universe, but the idea of gravity is accepted fact, no one is saying that gravity is caused by an intelligent designer or anything like that. It is the same way that in normal space and time, the speed of light as an absolute barrier is accepted fact by science. The difference with science, unlike religion, is that 'commonly accepted fact' is open to challenge, and if someone comes up with proof that the speed of light is somehow not a 'speed limit', that can be validated (and please, don't do a google search and come up with stuff from last year, where fermilab experimenters seemed to have shown neutrinos going faster than light; turned out to be experimental error), then accepted fact will change. Put it this way, Newton's laws of physics are still accepted fact, and unless you are working somewhere in the 99% of C (speed of light), they are true, as are Maxwell's equations. Usually when things are accepted as fact, when they get modified, it is in the details, not the overarching view of it. Evolution is much like that, the overall framework is accepted as fact, what is open, still changing, is the details. There are many branches of ID, but they generally boil down to two schools, one of which that has more possibilities than another: 1)Evolution never happened, the earth was created as it is exists today, what we see in the Fossil record is God playing tricks on us, testing our faith, Dinosaurs lived in the garden of Eden (they were vegetarian lol), you name it...which frankly is the delusions of morons clinging to bronze age myth as 'fact', and coming up with more and more outrageous sylogisms to try and bolster it. 2)Those who say evolution in fact has gone on, the earth is not 6000 years old, etc, but that the whole process is guided by an 'intelligent designer', that the idea of random mutations leading to survival of the fittest cannot explain how evolution for example, chose man to be the top of the pyramid. That at least has some potential, the problem is that the ID people who support this are doing so from the prospective of assuming it is true, and manipulating evidence to try and make it appear that only an intelligent designer created things..they don't approach it as scientists..and trying to teach ID as it now stands as science is ludicrous, because it starts with the assumption ID is true, fact, which science does not. When the two chemists came up with cold fusion, other scientists didn't say "it must be true" (well, okay, other than fellow chemists, who were busy blowing raspberries at physicists), they took the results the two published, and checked it..and showed pretty quickly that what they achieved was badly done experiments, not reality. A guy in princeton claimed that electrons had lower energy states that currently known, and claimed he could generate unlimited power from his so called 'blue light technology'...and it failed, miserably. There is nothing wrong with hypothesizing that evolution was guided by an intelligent designer of some sort, but you don't take a hypothesis, claim it is true, and cherry pick things to show it is true, you come up with ways to test the theory, run the tests, and see what they show. Saying "an eyeball couldn't happen from random chance", ie irreducibile complexity, fails, because irreducible complexity itself is a conjecture, because no one has proven that anything in nature couldn't happen by random chance, they are using as proof a conjecture that itself hasn't been proven. Science doesn't use the term 'fact' much, because science has the view that there is always room for questions, but that doesn't mean that science doesn't accept certain things as fact, because there has been nothing to show that is false. ID is religion, because it starts off assuming something is true, and while it claims to use the framework of science, it does what religion does with scripture, it 'interprets' facts that bolster what they say is truth, rather than analyze what they have and see if their conclusion fits what is there, big difference. Those who cite the bible on homosexuality as fact are guilty of that, or claiming literal truth to the words in the bible, because it ignores the facts around the bible, context, origins, etc.....religion proclaims "truth", as with Catholic teaching or biblical literalness, but unlike science, there isn't the idea that if something comes along that casts it in doubt, religion wants to bury those who challenge it, or poke their eyes out, torture them, until they get the result they want.

njlauren -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 9:22:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I agree with some of what you said. But the real agenda here which is being disguised is: WHO should do sex education for our children. By shifting the debate advocacy about what kind of sex education should be taught, the left triest to ignore the much more fundamental questions: a). Why is this an overriding federal issue. Why is this a federal issue? While I agree that the left feels there is a compelling issue for their constituencies I don't agree it thereby becomes judicially a compelling interest, especially in light of enumerated separation of powers. b). Our public schools are consistently failing to teach even the barest minimum: reading writing, and arithmetic. Something like half of all high schools graduate; somewhere around a quarter are functionally illiterate. Why in the world would we want to add to the responsibilities of an organization that has failed so profoundly in its primary mission. Why would we want to divert any attention from its mission to teach? Thats like buying a lemon car from a dealer, and coming back and buying a cell phone from him. Is that really the only idea you can come up with? The fact is that the left want to boost its core constituents - results be damned. No, Phydeaux, it is becase we have parents like Sarah Palin and her dumb ass husband, who cannot talk about sex rationally, but rather put it in the context of religious faith, say 'thou shalt not have sex until you marry, lest you be a slut" and so forth. How nice of you to say that my religious belief - and the beliefs of a billion Catholics are irrational - not to mention a billion christians. And said with such humility. And how interesting that promiscuity is both rational and virtuous. Spare me the self serving ideology. Religious belief by its very nature is irrational, The preferred definition of irrational, Miriam webster: a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence dictionary.com irrational adjective 1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason. 2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment. Macmillan: Irrational adjective American English pronunciation: irrational /ɪˈræʃən(ə)l/ done or happening without clear or sensible reasons ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So while you clearly believe that practioners of Catholicism are bereft of reason, faculty, or clear reasons for their belief that is not the usual or customary definition of irrational. You are attempting to use the irrational as a pejorative in its lesser alternate definition of illogical. Unfortunately (for your argument) it is perfectly legitimate to say that catholicism is a rational system of belief; that practioners of catholicism are neither more nor less rational than hormonal transgenders for example. Ergo neither it nor they are irrational. Illogical also has the definition of lacking sense, not showing good judgement. Again, pejorative. From your narrow perspective you thereby condemn muslims, hindus, christians and catholics as lacking sense, and not showing good judgements. Or more broadly, your posts condemn the fast majority of the globe that do not think as you do. "Think as I think.. or else be a toad". Regarding Uganda. Those that believed in the Aesir believed that to die in battle was the greatest good - far preferable to dying in bed. Japanese samurai believed death was preferable to dishonor. Muslims believe that jihad is the highest calling. The aztecs believed that sacrificing slaves was a good thing. The English believed the slave trade to be a good idea, and thought the death of millions no big deal (initially). I don't mind you having the opinion that Uganda should kowtow to western opinion. I do however find your unspoken assertion that the way you think MUST be the correct way and therefore everyone else is illogical to be amusing. I also note that your posts are prejudiced. You post far more frequently anti catholic/christian than any other group. The basis of Catholicism, or any religion, is based on faith that is removed from reason. You as a Catholic believe church teachings, that the church is the only true church, that birth control is a sin, that the church in fact is the only church because it started with Peter and so forth, yet those are beliefs, you believe the Catholic church is the only true church on faith...you believe the wine and bread becomes blood and flesh when the priest sanctifies it, when reason would dictate that is absolutely ludicrous. It isn't that Catholics are irrational or off their hinges, any more than people of other faiths necessarily are, it is that at its core it relies on believing things that cannot be proven using logic and reason. Aquinas, one of the more brilliant men to ever come out of the church, tried to prove the existence of God using Greek first principles, and in the end he came to the conclusion that God and faith cannot be proven using logical means, hence it is irrational. Irrational is not a perjorative, it simply means it is something that is outside logic and reason. Believing in God is irrational, because there is no logical proof that God exists (likewise, there is no proof that God doesn't exist, either), because it is outside the scope of reason and proof. As far as Uganda goes, my point is that the church's stance on contraception and abstinence only failed the test of logic, if the point of abstinence was to get people to stop having promiscuous sex and getting infected, it failed a logical test, if with condoms and sex ed the HIV infection rate plummeted, and when the church and its lackey president decide to preach abstinence, and the infection rate soars, what does that say? It says the church and the moron leader decide that condemning people in a third world countries to children without parents and people suffering from AIDS was a lesser evil then keeping to dogma that isn't even scriptural, it is irrational (by the way, many church leaders questioning relaxing the stance on condoms and on sex ed in the face of the horrors of AIDS, but Der Nazi Pope said "Nein!" and that was that. Hopefully Francis, who actually seems to have a heart unlike Der Pope and Pete the Polish Prince, who lived literally in an ivory tower, will reverse that). Course, you should go live in Uganda, you would like it there, the Bishops there supported a law making homosexual sex a capital crime, punishable by various forms of gruesome execution....

njlauren -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 9:39:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, here, you are wrong. I didn't say the Theory of Evolution was wrong, just that it hasn't been proven completely. There is evidence, but there are holes and gaps. Teaching Evolution as "this is what science thinks happened" and Creation/ID as "here is another theory that others think explains it," doesn't demean either, but it also doesn't teach something as settled science when it isn't settled science. 1. creation/ID isn't a theory. 2. Evolution is a fact. That is settled science. Every step is known, then? There is the fallacy in your thought, the idea that evolution needs to have every i dotted and t crossed for it to be considered settled. With evolution, the overarching ideas of it are settled: 1)That life started with simple life, that while we don't know how life started, we know it started with simple mechanisms. 2)That life changes over time, and the mechanism, based on studies of fast lived organisms and the fossil record, seems to be mutations that in turn appear to be random (I use appear to be, because that is what experiments with fruit flies and such show). Studies of DNA and genes is backing this up, as we have come to map the genomes of animals and plants, gotten to understand it, more and more it indicates patterns of randomness in genetic variations, rather than overarching ID. Put it this way, there are genetic sequences that literally do nothing, the human genome is full of DNA and RNA sequences that are dormant, yet exist in lower life forms. What kind of designer, other than a moron working at General Motors, puts in stuff to design that isn't used....it would be like a builder making triangles (trusses) out of wood, and nailing them to the sheetrock inside the house, where it does absolutely nothing.....or having a tailbone on a human being, that has no tail. 3)That mutations that make an animal have a better chance of surviving will drive that species forward, while an animal with mutations that don't fit, will not flourish (thus the ancestor of the camel that developed a mutation along the way to allow it to go a long time without water, when the climate in north Africa for example changed, or the deserts of Saudi Arabia when they formed, was able to survive, whereas the camel ancestor without that gene died out). Human beings lept to the top of the animal chain after being prey for many millions of years, because the intelligence and self awareness allowed us to shape our world to meet our needs, rather than rely on strengths that worked in the environment. Live in a cold climate? We had fire and the ability to hunt and build shelters; warm climate? We used tools and our intelligence to live there, and so forth. In theory, where ID could have a point is that the evolutionary process was guided,because it is in natural selection where the biggest holes lie, despite evidence to how natural selection in fact works (the moths of birmingham is a classic example), random mutations haven't been totally worked out or proven, though the chain of evidence as I mention is strongly indicating it is how it worked. The problem here is ID doesn't say "hmm, an intelligent designer could be responsible for evolution", and then set about to test it, unlike science, they assume it is true as 'fact' and then cherry pick evidence that proves their point, while ignoring evidence that works against it (for example, if ID is true, why the hell is so much in human beings and other animal and plant life 'wasted'? If the designer is smart enough to create life in all its complexities, create billions of species, and so forth, why would they be dumb enough to waste resources the way it does? Why are there thousands of RNA and DNA sequences in human beings that literally do nothing? More importantly, if there is some ultimate goal to ID, why even bother with evolution in the first place? The problem with ID is they take those questions and basically come up with a variation on the old line "God works in mysterious ways", which is not science, and it is why ID should not be taught. As far as young earth/6000 year old creation, that only should be taught as a joke in school, as an example of what Einstein once said, that many people deserve only to have a brain stem because they don't use their higher functions...

njlauren -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 9:46:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: More importantly, this isn't about virtuousness, it is about facing reality, something the leaders of your church have a hard time with. Let me give you an example, 20 years ago Uganda had an HIV infection rate approaching 50%, guys would sleep around and spread it to their wives and unborn children, it was horrible, and new infections were soaring. The government working with international aid groups started a program of condom distribution and a massive push for sex information for adults and teens, to try ad reach them, public service campaigns, etc...and it worked, the new HIV infection rate dropped like a stone, it was working. Unfortunately, a die hard Catholic was elected, and under pressure from the Catholic Bishops in the country, they halted condom give aways and all the sex education campaigns, everything but preaching abstinence outside marriage..and the HIV rate soared, and to this day Uganda has both a high HIV rate and also has a large rate of new cases....does their stance sound rational to you? I was raised Catholic, and am following Pope Francis with interest. I hope and believe he will address this soon. Here's a petition to encourage him to do so: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/pope-francis-say-yes-to-condoms-2 In 2011, there were 34 million people living with HIV and 2.5 million people became newly infected. Sub-Saharan Africa is the region most affected, accounting for 69% of all people living with HIV, including 3.1 million children. In 2011, 1.7 million people died from AIDS-related causes worldwide and 1.2 million of those people in Sub-Saharan Africa, almost 71% of all the AIDS-related deaths. [1] Catholicism is the dominant religion in Sub-Saharan Africa [2]. The Catholic Church, due to its many missionaries and schools, has an extremely important influence on the education and the social customs of the area. Unfortunately, it also has a strong stance against the use of condoms even though condoms are known to be the most basic, preventative measure against HIV/AIDS. UNAIDS declares the male latex condom to be “the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.”[3] Despite this and evidence that shows a decrease in the number of people infected with HIV in countries that promote condom use [3], and the evidence that shows that abstinence only sex education is ineffective and harmful [4], the catholic church still refuses to help educate about the indisputable fact that condoms reduce the spread of HIV and even teaches that the use of condoms is sinful. [5] This is extremely irresponsible of the Catholic Church and is unacceptable. Condoms play a critical role in preventing the spread of HIV [6, 7]. Accurate education about and the distribution of condoms is absolutely necessary, especially in high risk areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa. If the Catholic Church begins to truthfully teach how important condom use is for the prevention of the spread of HIV many lives will be saved. In a world where millions of people die of AIDS-related causes and millions are newly infected every year this issue cannot be ignored. Pope Francis has demonstrated so far that he wants to be a different kind of pope. He wants to show that caring about the people is more important to him than antiquated traditions. [8] He has a real opportunity to really show that this is true. Please sign this petition and tell Pope Francis to publicly announce his support for use of condoms for the prevention of the spread of HIV. Sign the petition or read the footnotes: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/pope-francis-say-yes-to-condoms-2 I truly hope so, I admire the new Pope, I am not Catholic, but I see in him someone who seems to understand what christianity and yes, Catholicism are supposed to be about. The last two Popes quite frankly had their heads up their ass, their whole idea of doctrinal purity above on the ground Christianity damn nearly destroyed the church. Both of them gave lip service to the horrible abuse scandal that has destroyed faith in the church (last I heard, in Ireland, unless you are older than methuselah, church attendance, once nearly 90%, has plummeted to something like 15%...). It is why we have Bishops in the US who have turned being Catholic into being anti gay and anti abortion, and who had the balls to censor a group of nuns who spent their time helping the poor and powerless, because they didn't scream about abortion and gays.......and when faced with the brutal reality of what is going on in Africa, hopefully the Pope will listen to pragmatists, not a bunch of nasty, stupid men who would rather condemn people to death rather than bend their rigid ideology, an ideology that I might add is not scriptural. What really shocked me is when Uganda was getting ready to pass laws making homosexual sex a capital offense, the Bishops there supported the law wholeheartedly, and the Vatican said nothing, they didn't attempt to reign the Bishops in, or silence them, which means basically that Der Nazi Pope supported killing people for having gay sex..and they wonder why so many are drifting away from the church...

njlauren -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 9:49:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama ....To the contrary, teens in states that prescribe more abstinence education are actually more likely to become pregnant(Figure 2). Lies, damn lies & statistics.. and the dimocrats that push them. Such cleverly constructed wordsmithing. Buried in the text of said observation that pregnances in white girls are 28.7 per thousands; black 108; hispanic 147. That single fact alone explains your pregnancy map more than adequately - and far better than the smug assertion that it is due conservative policies. Actually not, as always. From the study quote: we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. Unlike cons actual scientists do think. Here's a little thought experiment. Map teen pregnancy rates by state. Correlate by racial distribution. See how it varies from the authors map. Answer: Not much. Ergo, what I said was accurate. And as for 'scientists'. She's an associate professor of plant biology. She ignored two major variables known to strongly influence teen pregnancy rates and said her results strongle suggested that comprehensive sex education was in order. Thats like doing optical astronomy during the day and saying the results prove more powerful telescopes are in order. What exactly does race have to do with it? If abstinence works how does race even play a part in that? MsMJAY- I think you know the answer to that question, unfortunately...that in the mind of people like the poster, teen mothers are strictly the provence of 'those people' ie inner city blacks and hispanics, it is the same way not coincidentally that many tea party members believe that welfare and government support goes to 'those people' and if we just got them freeloaders off of welfare, the budget would balance itself.... Course, the fact that white girls down south get pregnant at a rate higher than in northern states doesn't matter to them, or that the teen pregnancy rate among all groups was way too high, doesn't matter, it is of course isn't a problem with the God fearing, God blessed white people gag.....Bristol Palin I guess must have been an adopted non white baby under that hypothesis, and I guess all the white girls who get pregnant must really be one of 'those' people, too grimace......to quote Charlie Brown after Lucy tells him how many games their team has lost, how many runs they have given up versus scored, etc, "lucy, tell your statistics to shut up"....MsM, keep in mind people like the OP and the GOP live in Fox sound bite territory, where if you spread bullshit long enough it turns into gold..... Yup he is hating on those inner city people and that's not right. But then again you are doing the same thing to the southern states by implying that anyone south of the Mason Dixon line are a bunch of ignorant sluts so how is that any different? Now I understand from your past posts that you have a real problem with religion but bigotry against any group isn't pretty. Even the ones you hate.[8\|] It isn't bigotry or calling people south of the Mason Dixon line sluts...the teen pregnancy rate if you look at the map someone posted is highest down in the bible belt, and MsM (who herself lives in the deep south) said that because of the bible thumpers, there is no sex education and the teen pregnancy numbers jump at you.....and quite frankly, promoting a policy that doesn't work because of religious belief is not the sign of someone all that smart, when facts show that something isn't working, keeping trying it hoping for a different outcome is stupid.

njlauren -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 9:56:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: MsMJAY- I think you know the answer to that question, unfortunately...that in the mind of people like the poster, teen mothers are strictly the provence of 'those people' ie inner city blacks and hispanics, it is the same way not coincidentally that many tea party members believe that welfare and government support goes to 'those people' and if we just got them freeloaders off of welfare, the budget would balance itself.... Course, the fact that white girls down south get pregnant at a rate higher than in northern states doesn't matter to them, or that the teen pregnancy rate among all groups was way too high, doesn't matter, it is of course isn't a problem with the God fearing, God blessed white people gag.....Bristol Palin I guess must have been an adopted non white baby under that hypothesis, and I guess all the white girls who get pregnant must really be one of 'those' people, too grimace......to quote Charlie Brown after Lucy tells him how many games their team has lost, how many runs they have given up versus scored, etc, "lucy, tell your statistics to shut up"....MsM, keep in mind people like the OP and the GOP live in Fox sound bite territory, where if you spread bullshit long enough it turns into gold..... Yup he is hating on those inner city people and that's not right. But then again you are doing the same thing to the southern states by implying that anyone south of the Mason Dixon line are a bunch of ignorant sluts so how is that any different? Now I understand from your past posts that you have a real problem with religion but bigotry against any group isn't pretty. Even the ones you hate.[8\|] I am south of the Mason Dixon line. Where is the comment about all of us being ignorant sluts? I will most definitely call out (and set straight) anyone who said that. Well one poster had claimed that "Course, the fact that white girls down south get pregnant at a rate higher than in northern states doesn't matter to them" several times in this thread and I am pretty sure she doesn't mean they get that way because they are so much smarter than the rest. Of course, you didn't bother to read what I was responding to, did you, you jumped off the deep end, eager to stomp around. Phyladeux brought race into this, and basically cited statistics that showed that the teen birth rate was because of blacks and hispanics, he basically blamed it on non whites.... My counterpoint was if it was all because of blacks and hispanics, why did white girls from the bible belt have higher rates of teen pregnancy than white girls in the north? My point was, even taking race out of the picture, comparing whites to whites, that teen white girls in the south had much higher rates of teen pregnancy than girls in the rest of the country....how is that calling them sluts? I didn't say southern girls were having sex more often, I said they got pregnant more, which goes back to what I and others are saying, that the high rates of teen pregnancy in the bible belt are probably correlated to the fact that because of religious belief and such, that the bible belt, as MsM said, teaches abstinence only..... The only reason I separated out white teen moms in the north and the south was to refute his claims that it was all blacks and hispanics who cause the problems; if white girls down south get pregnant as teens more often then white girls elsewhere, it blows his argument to kingdom come. If I had said southern girls have sex more often that girls up north, you would be correct, but i said pregnant. A white girl up north could have sex more often than white girls down south, but because they use birth control, could also get pregnant a lot less....so where you got I was calling white girls down south sluts is beyond me, unless you assume that white girls in the north or south don't use birth control at all...

Phydeaux -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 11:46:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: MsMJAY- I think you know the answer to that question, unfortunately...that in the mind of people like the poster, teen mothers are strictly the provence of 'those people' ie inner city blacks and hispanics, it is the same way not coincidentally that many tea party members believe that welfare and government support goes to 'those people' and if we just got them freeloaders off of welfare, the budget would balance itself.... Course, the fact that white girls down south get pregnant at a rate higher than in northern states doesn't matter to them, or that the teen pregnancy rate among all groups was way too high, doesn't matter, it is of course isn't a problem with the God fearing, God blessed white people gag.....Bristol Palin I guess must have been an adopted non white baby under that hypothesis, and I guess all the white girls who get pregnant must really be one of 'those' people, too grimace......to quote Charlie Brown after Lucy tells him how many games their team has lost, how many runs they have given up versus scored, etc, "lucy, tell your statistics to shut up"....MsM, keep in mind people like the OP and the GOP live in Fox sound bite territory, where if you spread bullshit long enough it turns into gold..... Yup he is hating on those inner city people and that's not right. But then again you are doing the same thing to the southern states by implying that anyone south of the Mason Dixon line are a bunch of ignorant sluts so how is that any different? Now I understand from your past posts that you have a real problem with religion but bigotry against any group isn't pretty. Even the ones you hate.[8\|] I am south of the Mason Dixon line. Where is the comment about all of us being ignorant sluts? I will most definitely call out (and set straight) anyone who said that. Well one poster had claimed that "Course, the fact that white girls down south get pregnant at a rate higher than in northern states doesn't matter to them" several times in this thread and I am pretty sure she doesn't mean they get that way because they are so much smarter than the rest. Phyladeux brought race into this, and basically cited statistics that showed that the teen birth rate was because of blacks and hispanics, he basically blamed it on non whites.... That it offensive in extremis. I said that the graph ya'll are parading around as proof that abstinence (and of conservative stupidity) is flawed. When the contribution based on race is TWELVE TIMES the putative contribution based on abstinence and you lose the contribution due to abstinence in the noise. I said the study is flawed because it left out factors known to be huge factors on teen preganancy - such as a father in the home. I made no comment about race other than to say that the methodology of the study is ridiculous.

Phydeaux -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 11:59:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I agree with some of what you said. But the real agenda here which is being disguised is: WHO should do sex education for our children. By shifting the debate advocacy about what kind of sex education should be taught, the left triest to ignore the much more fundamental questions: a). Why is this an overriding federal issue. Why is this a federal issue? While I agree that the left feels there is a compelling issue for their constituencies I don't agree it thereby becomes judicially a compelling interest, especially in light of enumerated separation of powers. b). Our public schools are consistently failing to teach even the barest minimum: reading writing, and arithmetic. Something like half of all high schools graduate; somewhere around a quarter are functionally illiterate. Why in the world would we want to add to the responsibilities of an organization that has failed so profoundly in its primary mission. Why would we want to divert any attention from its mission to teach? Thats like buying a lemon car from a dealer, and coming back and buying a cell phone from him. Is that really the only idea you can come up with? The fact is that the left want to boost its core constituents - results be damned. No, Phydeaux, it is becase we have parents like Sarah Palin and her dumb ass husband, who cannot talk about sex rationally, but rather put it in the context of religious faith, say 'thou shalt not have sex until you marry, lest you be a slut" and so forth. How nice of you to say that my religious belief - and the beliefs of a billion Catholics are irrational - not to mention a billion christians. And said with such humility. And how interesting that promiscuity is both rational and virtuous. Spare me the self serving ideology. Religious belief by its very nature is irrational, The preferred definition of irrational, Miriam webster: a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence dictionary.com irrational adjective 1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason. 2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment. Macmillan: Irrational adjective American English pronunciation: irrational /ɪˈræʃən(ə)l/ done or happening without clear or sensible reasons ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So while you clearly believe that practioners of Catholicism are bereft of reason, faculty, or clear reasons for their belief that is not the usual or customary definition of irrational. You are attempting to use the irrational as a pejorative in its lesser alternate definition of illogical. Unfortunately (for your argument) it is perfectly legitimate to say that catholicism is a rational system of belief; that practioners of catholicism are neither more nor less rational than hormonal transgenders for example. Ergo neither it nor they are irrational. Illogical also has the definition of lacking sense, not showing good judgement. Again, pejorative. From your narrow perspective you thereby condemn muslims, hindus, christians and catholics as lacking sense, and not showing good judgements. Or more broadly, your posts condemn the fast majority of the globe that do not think as you do. "Think as I think.. or else be a toad". Regarding Uganda. Those that believed in the Aesir believed that to die in battle was the greatest good - far preferable to dying in bed. Japanese samurai believed death was preferable to dishonor. Muslims believe that jihad is the highest calling. The aztecs believed that sacrificing slaves was a good thing. The English believed the slave trade to be a good idea, and thought the death of millions no big deal (initially). I don't mind you having the opinion that Uganda should kowtow to western opinion. I do however find your unspoken assertion that the way you think MUST be the correct way and therefore everyone else is illogical to be amusing. I also note that your posts are prejudiced. You post far more frequently anti catholic/christian than any other group. The basis of Catholicism, or any religion, is based on faith that is removed from reason. You as a Catholic believe church teachings, that the church is the only true church, that birth control is a sin, that the church in fact is the only church because it started with Peter and so forth, yet those are beliefs, you believe the Catholic church is the only true church on faith...you believe the wine and bread becomes blood and flesh when the priest sanctifies it, when reason would dictate that is absolutely ludicrous. It isn't that Catholics are irrational or off their hinges, any more than people of other faiths necessarily are, it is that at its core it relies on believing things that cannot be proven using logic and reason. Aquinas, one of the more brilliant men to ever come out of the church, tried to prove the existence of God using Greek first principles, and in the end he came to the conclusion that God and faith cannot be proven using logical means, hence it is irrational. Irrational is not a perjorative, it simply means it is something that is outside logic and reason. Believing in God is irrational, because there is no logical proof that God exists (likewise, there is no proof that God doesn't exist, either), because it is outside the scope of reason and proof. A scientist when he sees a phenomenon he doesn't understand may attempt to design an experiment to explain it. That course of action is not irrational. Another person - upon seeing the same sunset may merely choose to enjoy it. That course of action is also not irrational. There is no question that I believe that Jesus Christ came, suffered, died and rose from the dead. You present this as irrational. I base my faith that 11 men had this belief and spread it across the globe. The testimony of their lives. I have this faith on the work of great minds and great thinkers - St. Theresa of the little flower. Benedict. St. Augustine - and on the testimony of their lives. Finally I have faith based on my own personal experiences. To make the claim that my faith is bereft of rational thought denigrates the process by which people become believers.

Phydeaux -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 12:04:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux But the statement "Evolution is a fact. That is settled science" is simply never true. The National Academy of Science disagrees with you: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=28 "Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong." And yet the very first line of your quote says evolution is a theory. The oxford dictionary, fortunately removed from the perview of the National Academies, says nothing about the national academies definition. fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true: Since a theory is never proven, (only supported) it ergo cannot be a fact. Looking in the miriam webster definition of "theory" we find: the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\ : an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events Since you may not define an object in terms of itself (tautological) it seems that indeed, a fact is not a theory. A quick perusal finds no other cases where the NAS calls a theory a fact. For example the theory of gravity is, wait for it: a theory. So it seems that in our zeal to proclaim evolution a fact that the national acadmies makes a special exception for the word fact. Thereby removing themselves from the debate. Gravity is accepted as fact, even though it is a 'theory'. Gravity, like evolution, has gaps in understanding, as there is with all the fields that make up the forces in the universe, but the idea of gravity is accepted fact, no one is saying that gravity is caused by an intelligent designer or anything like that. It is the same way that in normal space and time, the speed of light as an absolute barrier is accepted fact by science. The difference with science, unlike religion, is that 'commonly accepted fact' is open to challenge, and if someone comes up with proof that the speed of light is somehow not a 'speed limit', that can be validated (and please, don't do a google search and come up with stuff from last year, where fermilab experimenters seemed to have shown neutrinos going faster than light; turned out to be experimental error), then accepted fact will change. Put it this way, Newton's laws of physics are still accepted fact, and unless you are working somewhere in the 99% of C (speed of light), they are true, as are Maxwell's equations. Usually when things are accepted as fact, when they get modified, it is in the details, not the overarching view of it. Evolution is much like that, the overall framework is accepted as fact, what is open, still changing, is the details. There are many branches of ID, but they generally boil down to two schools, one of which that has more possibilities than another: 1)Evolution never happened, the earth was created as it is exists today, what we see in the Fossil record is God playing tricks on us, testing our faith, Dinosaurs lived in the garden of Eden (they were vegetarian lol), you name it...which frankly is the delusions of morons clinging to bronze age myth as 'fact', and coming up with more and more outrageous sylogisms to try and bolster it. 2)Those who say evolution in fact has gone on, the earth is not 6000 years old, etc, but that the whole process is guided by an 'intelligent designer', that the idea of random mutations leading to survival of the fittest cannot explain how evolution for example, chose man to be the top of the pyramid. That at least has some potential, the problem is that the ID people who support this are doing so from the prospective of assuming it is true, and manipulating evidence to try and make it appear that only an intelligent designer created things..they don't approach it as scientists..and trying to teach ID as it now stands as science is ludicrous, because it starts with the assumption ID is true, fact, which science does not. When the two chemists came up with cold fusion, other scientists didn't say "it must be true" (well, okay, other than fellow chemists, who were busy blowing raspberries at physicists), they took the results the two published, and checked it..and showed pretty quickly that what they achieved was badly done experiments, not reality. A guy in princeton claimed that electrons had lower energy states that currently known, and claimed he could generate unlimited power from his so called 'blue light technology'...and it failed, miserably. There is nothing wrong with hypothesizing that evolution was guided by an intelligent designer of some sort, but you don't take a hypothesis, claim it is true, and cherry pick things to show it is true, you come up with ways to test the theory, run the tests, and see what they show. Saying "an eyeball couldn't happen from random chance", ie irreducibile complexity, fails, because irreducible complexity itself is a conjecture, because no one has proven that anything in nature couldn't happen by random chance, they are using as proof a conjecture that itself hasn't been proven. Science doesn't use the term 'fact' much, because science has the view that there is always room for questions, but that doesn't mean that science doesn't accept certain things as fact, because there has been nothing to show that is false. ID is religion, because it starts off assuming something is true, and while it claims to use the framework of science, it does what religion does with scripture, it 'interprets' facts that bolster what they say is truth, rather than analyze what they have and see if their conclusion fits what is there, big difference. Those who cite the bible on homosexuality as fact are guilty of that, or claiming literal truth to the words in the bible, because it ignores the facts around the bible, context, origins, etc.....religion proclaims "truth", as with Catholic teaching or biblical literalness, but unlike science, there isn't the idea that if something comes along that casts it in doubt, religion wants to bury those who challenge it, or poke their eyes out, torture them, until they get the result they want. As I said I have no problem with the theory of evolution. Like gravity, the speed of light etc, I also accept it as a given until such time as something else explains the data points better. I have a huge problem with the National Academies Press injecting politics into science and calling evolution (and evolution alone apparently) fact.

DomKen -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 1:16:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux That it offensive in extremis. I said that the graph ya'll are parading around as proof that abstinence (and of conservative stupidity) is flawed. When the contribution based on race is TWELVE TIMES the putative contribution based on abstinence and you lose the contribution due to abstinence in the noise. I said the study is flawed because it left out factors known to be huge factors on teen preganancy - such as a father in the home. I made no comment about race other than to say that the methodology of the study is ridiculous. What's offensive is that you continue peddling this lie. The study adjusted for ethnic makeup so the statistically significant increase in teen pregnancies seen in abstinence only states was real and had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the teens.

Phydeaux -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 2:19:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux That it offensive in extremis. I said that the graph ya'll are parading around as proof that abstinence (and of conservative stupidity) is flawed. When the contribution based on race is TWELVE TIMES the putative contribution based on abstinence and you lose the contribution due to abstinence in the noise. I said the study is flawed because it left out factors known to be huge factors on teen preganancy - such as a father in the home. I made no comment about race other than to say that the methodology of the study is ridiculous. What's offensive is that you continue peddling this lie. The study adjusted for ethnic makeup so the statistically significant increase in teen pregnancies seen in abstinence only states was real and had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the teens. The methodology of the adjustment is suspect. Sequential correlation? Additionally the correlation was found to be (barely) significant, not considering OTHER factors which are known to have huge effects. Such as fathers in the house. In other words - politically motivated science with a suspect science and a ridiculous conclusion.

mnottertail -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 2:23:37 PM)
lol, your innumeracy is world reknown. Did Bristol have a father in the home? She sure did a boyfriend who turned into a father. What exactly are the numbers on fathers in the house, because there is that huge effect factor which is what with citation?

PeonForHer -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 3:59:09 PM)
quote: That it offensive in extremis. Phydeaux, just a quick aside: can you apprise me of the difference between the phrase 'that is offensive in extremis' and 'that is extremely offensive'? Is it something to do with feeling offended in a kind of Latin way rather than an English way? I like to pin down these subtle but perhaps crucial things.

PeonForHer -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 4:02:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail lol, your innumeracy is world reknown. Did Bristol have a father in the home? She sure did a boyfriend who turned into a father. What exactly are the numbers on fathers in the house, because there is that huge effect factor which is what with citation? Jesus Christ, could we all stop talking about Bristol as a person? It's a city in England - and one that I happen to live in - not a person. This is giving me undesired and undeserved headaches.

DomKen -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 4:07:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux That it offensive in extremis. I said that the graph ya'll are parading around as proof that abstinence (and of conservative stupidity) is flawed. When the contribution based on race is TWELVE TIMES the putative contribution based on abstinence and you lose the contribution due to abstinence in the noise. I said the study is flawed because it left out factors known to be huge factors on teen preganancy - such as a father in the home. I made no comment about race other than to say that the methodology of the study is ridiculous. What's offensive is that you continue peddling this lie. The study adjusted for ethnic makeup so the statistically significant increase in teen pregnancies seen in abstinence only states was real and had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the teens. The methodology of the adjustment is suspect. Sequential correlation? Additionally the correlation was found to be (barely) significant, not considering OTHER factors which are known to have huge effects. Such as fathers in the house. In other words - politically motivated science with a suspect science and a ridiculous conclusion. Bullshit! Are you really arguing that there are a higher percentage of single mothers raising families in the abstinence only states? Do you have any data to support that claim?

DomKen -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 4:09:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Jesus Christ, could we all stop talking about Bristol as a person? It's a city in England - and one that I happen to live in - not a person. This is giving me undesired and undeserved headaches. Maybe you can tell me, what the hell is "Bristol fashion?" Ship shape I get but...

PeonForHer -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 4:19:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Jesus Christ, could we all stop talking about Bristol as a person? It's a city in England - and one that I happen to live in - not a person. This is giving me undesired and undeserved headaches. Maybe you can tell me, what the hell is "Bristol fashion?" Ship shape I get but... Squeaky-clean and looking great even at low tide. Bristol's docks are set in water that would drop a long way and would therefore test the strength and appearance of much of a ship's hull. There's also some reference to the fact that Bristol hosted ships that had travelled long journeys and sometimes had been carrying slaves. All the nastiness of such trips had to be 'polished away'. Bristol has quite some unpleasantness in its history, I need hardly add.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 4:34:47 PM)
Thanks for that Peon.......I was a lot of years in the (British) merchant navy and never really understood the meaning of the saying.

PeonForHer -> RE: End ABSTINANCE "education"! ( Since it's not science and all... ) (12/28/2013 5:41:24 PM)
You can't have been in the Navy, Dvr. You're a woman. Women aren't allowed on ships because they're feeble and weedy and can't walk more than five yards without getting their heels stuck in the deck planks.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625