Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: ?? [Re: Xanthas]
    #5691865 - 05/30/06 06:28 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

And education, FYI, does not increase intelligence, only knowledge.

Nuh uh. Read this:
http://language.la.psu.edu/~thorne/Intelligence2005.pdf


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXanthas
Blaspheme,blaspheyou, Blaspheverybody

Registered: 11/19/05
Posts: 267
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: ?? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5691981 - 05/30/06 06:56 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
And education, FYI, does not increase intelligence, only knowledge.

Nuh uh. Read this:
http://language.la.psu.edu/~thorne/Intelligence2005.pdf




A most delicious study. But my original point still stands. Atheists are not selected to be given a better/more rigorous education.


--------------------
If you don't ask the question, you always get it wrong.


Edited by Xanthas (05/30/06 06:57 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: ?? [Re: Xanthas]
    #5692001 - 05/30/06 07:01 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Never disagreed with your original point.  :wink: In fact, I rather like it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: ?? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5692467 - 05/30/06 08:43 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

:confused:  I am not exaggerating my stance, which is that men and women both participate in relationships in dysfunctional ways.  Men tend to be more physically aggressive, while women tend to be emotionally aggressive.

How was this exaggerated??


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: ?? [Re: Xanthas]
    #5692519 - 05/30/06 08:59 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Xanthas said:
IIRC, women are statistically more likely to attempt to physically harm their spouses, though males are more likely to injure their spouse.




Source? I know that women are more likely to attempt suicide, while men are more likely to "succeed" at killing themselves, but I have never heard any statistics about "attempting to harm."

Quote:

Secondly, juries generally tend to go easier on females. Easy to find an example- If you see a male standing over an unconscious female body on the street, breathing hard, what's your gut-level reaction? Reverse the situation, and you get an entirely different reaction.




When would the jury get the chance to see the crime seconds after it happened? Are you saying that they are more likely to believe in a man's guilt when presented with a murder case? Again, source, please. I hear this myth propagated all the time & I call bullshit.

Quote:

Thirdly, males are less average, on the whole, then females. They have more clusters on either end of the intelligence spectrum.




According to whom? If you wish to express your opinion, then do so via phrases like "I believe" or "I think," rather than making definitive statements or citing statistical likelihood.

If you are presenting the results of research, verify your information & hook us up with a link, if possible. Thanks!

Quote:

And education, FYI, does not increase intelligence, only knowledge. Both decrease the likelihood of going to jail, however.




I did not say that education increased intelligence, I said that education was the variable negatively correlated to religiosity, rather than IQ. The original research had been on IQ scores & religious belief, but later research revealed that education level was the pivotal variable.

Quote:

Even as such, what would cause atheists to be more highly educated then their theist counterparts? Or mayhap it's education that increases atheism?




The theory is that education reduces the likelihood of remaining religious, rather than atheism increasing the likelihood of pursuing higher education. See the original link I posted for a brief explanation of this idea.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: ?? [Re: Veritas]
    #5693050 - 05/30/06 10:47 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I was referring to the statement: "I do not however, agree that dishonesty and failure to communicate should be punished by imprisonment."

I failed to notice the "not". :mad:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXanthas
Blaspheme,blaspheyou, Blaspheverybody

Registered: 11/19/05
Posts: 267
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: ?? [Re: Veritas]
    #5693141 - 05/30/06 11:07 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
Quote:

Xanthas said:
IIRC, women are statistically more likely to attempt to physically harm their spouses, though males are more likely to injure their spouse.




Source? I know that women are more likely to attempt suicide, while men are more likely to "succeed" at killing themselves, but I have never heard any statistics about "attempting to harm."




http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm http://
www.familytx.org/research/Control_DV_against_men.pdf

Quote:

Veritas said:
Quote:

Secondly, juries generally tend to go easier on females. Easy to find an example- If you see a male standing over an unconscious female body on the street, breathing hard, what's your gut-level reaction? Reverse the situation, and you get an entirely different reaction.




When would the jury get the chance to see the crime seconds after it happened? Are you saying that they are more likely to believe in a man's guilt when presented with a murder case? Again, source, please. I hear this myth propagated all the time & I call bullshit.




The jury does not need to see the crime. My example was one of what most people have as, as I said, a gut-level reaction.

Another one, if you so like. You're living in an apartment. You can often hear, in the apartment below/above/beside you, what sounds like violent banging, and angry yelling from both a male and a female voice.

Most people's first guess would be that the male is attacking the female. It would be mine, and I'm guessing it would be yours too.

And I am saying this. It's called a stereotype. It does exist, and it does influence society. Somehow I didn't think that such a stereotype needed independent, double-blind studies to determine its existence.

But I'll make an exception for you. (This was also in the links I gave)

Quote:

Wikipedia said:
The general consensus seems to be that male on female domestic violence is more likely to result in serious injury or death, whereas female on male (which, under the definition used by the UK Government if no others, includes preventing the father seeing the children), is more likely to result in male suicide. Men on average have more upper body strength and socialization that predisposes them to resort to violence more than women do, and that can give them a higher average lethality than women. However, women can and do use weapons to equalize whatever deficit in physical power which may be present, and can also use social constraints against men hitting women even in self-defence, to provide them with sufficient lethality to be dangerous in conflict situations. The US National Family Violence Survey has consistently indicated, in repeated surveys over more than 30 years, that women are more than twice as likely as men to initiate domestic assault, and more than twice as likely to use weapons. The oft-repeated claim that all violence by women is self-defence has similarly been proven to be based on circular reasoning. Women also are at least as well equipped to use psychological violence that forms a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour (to use the Women's Aid definition given above). Women are also equally capable of using a proxy, which would further skew the results (since a proxy murder is not recorded as a case of domestic violence.)




Also, see the links above,

Quote:

Veritas said:
Quote:

Thirdly, males are less average, on the whole, then females. They have more clusters on either end of the intelligence spectrum.




According to whom? If you wish to express your opinion, then do so via phrases like "I believe" or "I think," rather than making definitive statements or citing statistical likelihood.

If you are presenting the results of research, verify your information & hook us up with a link, if possible. Thanks!




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence Bottom of every wikipedia page (or reasonable research/length) is a plethora of links.

Quote:

Veritas said:
Quote:

And education, FYI, does not increase intelligence, only knowledge. Both decrease the likelihood of going to jail, however.




I did not say that education increased intelligence, I said that education was the variable negatively correlated to religiosity, rather than IQ. The original research had been on IQ scores & religious belief, but later research revealed that education level was the pivotal variable.

Quote:

Even as such, what would cause atheists to be more highly educated then their theist counterparts? Or mayhap it's education that increases atheism?




The theory is that education reduces the likelihood of remaining religious, rather than atheism increasing the likelihood of pursuing higher education. See the original link I posted for a brief explanation of this idea.




It is agreed that education is inversely correlated with religiosity, however, I do believe you are incorrect about the controls. However, intelligence does negatively correlate with religiosity. If you read the links, you'd find little gems like:

http://undergraduatestudies.ucdavis.edu/explorations/2004/clark.pdf

I don't believe SAT scores are quite as affected by higher education, as most are taken while still in high school.

Either way, the point still stands.


--------------------
If you don't ask the question, you always get it wrong.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKidgardFromSRQ
Strange

Registered: 05/30/05
Posts: 1,501
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
Re: ?? [Re: Veritas]
    #5693799 - 05/31/06 03:57 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
Quote:

Xanthas said:
If atheists make up about 4% of the population, then if they are just as irrational/stupid as most of humanity, they should make up about 4% of the prison population.

However, atheists make up less then 1% of the prison population. This leads us to the natural conclusion that... (anyone?)




Statistically, atheists are highly educated and have a higher per-capita income than theists.  Educated, white-collar Americans are less likely to end up in State or Federal prison.

Women are vastly underrepresented in State (7%) and Federal (5%) prisons, as well.  These numbers are astonishing when you realize that roughly 51% of the U.S. population is comprised of women.  Does this mean that we are more ethical?  :grin:




athiesm doesnt follow any defined ethics that arent of influence of religion based on theism or in some cases polytheism, which in many ethics are the same as monotheistic religions. so, pretty much they can create their own "morals" and morph their idealism to be self serving.

not only that, but many people who are religious or theistic are usually overly ambitious in ways that athiests ussually arent. this "zeal" can make a person take things farther in acute situation.


--------------------
Be nice to people in general. Even if you don't like them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleniteowl
GrandPaw
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc: Flag
Re: ?? [Re: KidgardFromSRQ]
    #5694042 - 05/31/06 07:50 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

KidgardFromSRQ said:
athiesm doesnt follow any defined ethics that arent of influence of religion based on theism or in some cases polytheism, which in many ethics are the same as monotheistic religions. so, pretty much they can create their own "morals" and morph their idealism to be self serving.

not only that, but many people who are religious or theistic are usually overly ambitious in ways that athiests ussually arent. this "zeal" can make a person take things farther in acute situation.




What you don't seem to get is that the "Moral Law of God" was written by man. It is thru mans own sense of right and wrong (moral compass) that this "Law of God" was written

All morals come from man not god.

God was invented to control the masses.

You have deluded yourself into believing that your moral compass is god. When it is just your own sense of right and wrong that you are following.

Just because atheist and agnostics understand this........does not mean that they are flippant in their morals...(changing their morals to fit their mood)

The agnostics and atheist that I know personally are much more firmly grounded in their moral beliefs than the average "religious" person.

So your questions....

"What's ever come out of atheist or agnostic philosophy?

What good is philosophy if you don't put it to use? and what philosophies could you find that you could not find in believing in one god?"

Are moot.

You are looking to persecute an ideology that you don't/won't/can't understand.
This is ignorance.
People are trying to get you to see.
But you refuse.
You are trying to make these people out to be heathens because they don't follow a religion.

That....in itself, is wrong.

"Judge not lest ye be judged"


--------------------
Live for the moment you are in now
Don't be bogged down by your past
Don't be afraid of what lies in your future


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXanthas
Blaspheme,blaspheyou, Blaspheverybody

Registered: 11/19/05
Posts: 267
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: ?? [Re: KidgardFromSRQ]
    #5694041 - 05/31/06 07:50 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Back up your statements, KidgardFromSRQ. I haven't heard you say anything substantiated in this whole thread. You just tout opinion as fact, with nothing to support it.

I've just given you one (of many, many) examples of an atheistic system of ethics. If you want to go ahead and say theism influenced it, because it was around at the time, then I could just as well say that atheism has influenced all systems of morality that the religious have, and that they're all based around something you can get more efficiently with atheism, because it's been around so long.

While it is true that atheists have a number of differing concepts of morality, so do theists.


--------------------
If you don't ask the question, you always get it wrong.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: ?? [Re: Xanthas]
    #5694268 - 05/31/06 10:05 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Very interesting info on the "attempting to injure" side of domestic violence against men.  I hadn't heard those statistics before.  :eek:


As to this myth, though:

Quote:

Xanthas said:
Secondly, juries generally tend to go easier on females.




I think it needs to die a peaceful death.  All of the studies I've read show an increased rate of conviction and imprisonment of women.  (Especially on assault and drug charges.)  There simply is no evidence to support the assertion that women get a "break" in the criminal justice system.  Only 22% of arrests in the U.S. are of females, and this figure has remained fairly constant over the past 15 years.  Many of these arrests result in imprisonment.

The fact is, women are not charged with criminal acts as frequently as men are.  This is why the huge disparity in prison population exists.

(BTW, your Wiki quote did not address the effect of stereotypes on juries.)

Quote:

Thirdly, males are less average, on the whole, then females. They have more clusters on either end of the intelligence spectrum.




Quote:

Hedges and Nowell (1995) performed a meta-analysis of national ability surveys that cover a 32-year period. Their primary conclusion is that male scores show greater variance (more men than women at the extremes of ability) in most abilities.

The use of representative samples gives them reassurance that these differences in variance are true, and not the result of differential selection by sex.

Their second finding is that average differences in most abilities are small. Exceptions include moderate to strong average advantages to men in math and science and typically male vocations, and moderate to strong average disadvantages to men in reading.




This study was a review of academic abilities, not all abilities, so it is inaccurate for you to say that men are less average on the whole than women.  The study also concluded that the differences in academic abilities are small.

Your guess that this small variance in average academic abilities can be extrapolated to other qualities is a BIG jump!

My guess is that the most significant factor in male aggressiveness is testosterone level.  Men with higher levels are more aggressive, men with lower levels are less aggressive.  Women generally have very low levels of testosterone, so they tend to be less physically aggressive. :shrug:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
Re: ?? [Re: Veritas]
    #5694293 - 05/31/06 10:13 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I hate it when I get an infection in my plethora


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: ?? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #5695194 - 05/31/06 02:46 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Have you been picking fistfights with those kids who made fun of your heelys?  :lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKidgardFromSRQ
Strange

Registered: 05/30/05
Posts: 1,501
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
Re: ?? [Re: niteowl]
    #5695422 - 05/31/06 03:45 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

niteowl said:
Quote:

KidgardFromSRQ said:
athiesm doesnt follow any defined ethics that arent of influence of religion based on theism or in some cases polytheism, which in many ethics are the same as monotheistic religions. so, pretty much they can create their own "morals" and morph their idealism to be self serving.

not only that, but many people who are religious or theistic are usually overly ambitious in ways that athiests ussually arent. this "zeal" can make a person take things farther in acute situation.




What you don't seem to get is that the "Moral Law of God" was written by man. It is thru mans own sense of right and wrong (moral compass) that this "Law of God" was written

All morals come from man not god.

God was invented to control the masses.

You have deluded yourself into believing that your moral compass is god. When it is just your own sense of right and wrong that you are following.

Just because atheist and agnostics understand this........does not mean that they are flippant in their morals...(changing their morals to fit their mood)

The agnostics and atheist that I know personally are much more firmly grounded in their moral beliefs than the average "religious" person.

So your questions....

"What's ever come out of atheist or agnostic philosophy?

What good is philosophy if you don't put it to use? and what philosophies could you find that you could not find in believing in one god?"

Are moot.

You are looking to persecute an ideology that you don't/won't/can't understand.
This is ignorance.
People are trying to get you to see.
But you refuse.
You are trying to make these people out to be heathens because they don't follow a religion.

That....in itself, is wrong.

"Judge not lest ye be judged"





explain how you think exsistence itself came to be. it can be comprehended, but there had to of been something which came from nothing. and that something which came from nothing, is god. where it all started. and to think that there is nothing above our physical realm of conciousness is ignorance. i believe that spiritual grounds are a realm of conciousness which would be considered "gods grounds".

the morals that we follow ultimatley though, all have the belief of god at base. and these morals were handed down by god to handed down from man by god. that's what you fail to see, the unlogical chance of that.


--------------------
Be nice to people in general. Even if you don't like them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKidgardFromSRQ
Strange

Registered: 05/30/05
Posts: 1,501
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
Re: ?? [Re: KidgardFromSRQ]
    #5695478 - 05/31/06 03:59 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

you guys are right though, i am hung up on the idea of morality. but, we can't yet prove there is a god who handed these morals down to man. so its only logical to assume that these morals were created by man. but then again, when i see stuff like a code behind the bible being found which accuratley prophecises... it has to make you wonder.


--------------------
Be nice to people in general. Even if you don't like them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: ?? [Re: KidgardFromSRQ]
    #5695551 - 05/31/06 04:19 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

KidgardFromSRQ said:
but then again, when i see stuff like a code behind the bible being found which accuratley prophecises... it has to make you wonder.




Just like the code behind Moby Dick that accurately makes all sorts of prophecies, which have already been fufilled? :lol:

The Bible code has been consistently refuted in this forum.

:earth: :sun: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXanthas
Blaspheme,blaspheyou, Blaspheverybody

Registered: 11/19/05
Posts: 267
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: ?? [Re: Veritas]
    #5696097 - 05/31/06 06:50 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Gods, this is getting off topic.

Quote:

Veritas said:
As to this myth, though:

Quote:

Xanthas said:
Secondly, juries generally tend to go easier on females.




I think it needs to die a peaceful death.  All of the studies I've read show an increased rate of conviction and imprisonment of women.  (Especially on assault and drug charges.)  There simply is no evidence to support the assertion that women get a "break" in the criminal justice system.  Only 22% of arrests in the U.S. are of females, and this figure has remained fairly constant over the past 15 years.  Many of these arrests result in imprisonment.

The fact is, women are not charged with criminal acts as frequently as men are.  This is why the huge disparity in prison population exists.




I still disagree. People have stereotypes. Juries are composed of people. Therefore, juries have stereotypes.

Imagine if I said that in the deep south, it was a myth that black people are judged more harshly, and such a myth needed to die a peaceful death. I can only imagine some people would find fault with that, and rightly so. Juries have human failings and biases. People know that women are unlikely to commit violent crimes, and consider this in their case decisions.

Quote:

Veritas said:
Quote:

Thirdly, males are less average, on the whole, then females. They have more clusters on either end of the intelligence spectrum.




Quote:

Hedges and Nowell (1995) performed a meta-analysis of national ability surveys that cover a 32-year period. Their primary conclusion is that male scores show greater variance (more men than women at the extremes of ability) in most abilities.

The use of representative samples gives them reassurance that these differences in variance are true, and not the result of differential selection by sex.

Their second finding is that average differences in most abilities are small. Exceptions include moderate to strong average advantages to men in math and science and typically male vocations, and moderate to strong average disadvantages to men in reading.




This study was a review of academic abilities, not all abilities, so it is inaccurate for you to say that men are less average on the whole than women.  The study also concluded that the differences in academic abilities are small.

Your guess that this small variance in average academic abilities can be extrapolated to other qualities is a BIG jump!

My guess is that the most significant factor in male aggressiveness is testosterone level.  Men with higher levels are more aggressive, men with lower levels are less aggressive.  Women generally have very low levels of testosterone, so they tend to be less physically aggressive. :shrug:




My apologies. I should've been more specific. I only meant to refer factually to the intelligence variance between the sexes, and my wager was that such variance exists in other areas as well.


--------------------
If you don't ask the question, you always get it wrong.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: ?? [Re: Xanthas]
    #5696125 - 05/31/06 06:58 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Xanthas said:
Gods, this is getting off topic.




Why, yes, it is!  :grin:  (Last OT post, I promise.)

Quote:

Imagine if I said that in the deep south, it was a myth that black people are judged more harshly, and such a myth needed to die a peaceful death. I can only imagine some people would find fault with that, and rightly so. Juries have human failings and biases. People know that women are unlikely to commit violent crimes, and consider this in their case decisions.




I am not saying that stereotypes do not exist, I am saying that the numbers do not support an assertion that women are being let off the hook by juries. In fact, convictions of women have steadily increased over the last ten years.

Still, most arrests (78%) are of men, most criminal trials involve male defendants, most guilty AND not-guilty jury verdicts involve a male defendant, and therefore most of the inmates in state and federal prisons are men.

On the other hand, African-Americans are overrepresented in the prison population, and many believe that this is due to racial stereotypes. :shrug:

Quote:

My apologies. I should've been more specific. I only meant to refer factually to the intelligence variance between the sexes, and my wager was that such variance exists in other areas as well.




Could be.  :grin:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXanthas
Blaspheme,blaspheyou, Blaspheverybody

Registered: 11/19/05
Posts: 267
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: ?? [Re: KidgardFromSRQ]
    #5696202 - 05/31/06 07:20 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

KidgardFromSRQ said:
explain how you think exsistence itself came to be. it can be comprehended, but there had to of been something which came from nothing. and that something which came from nothing, is god. where it all started.




There are two logical (depending upon your regarding of infinity as logical) possibilities. One is the uncaused cause, the other is infinite regress. I'll even point out to you where you can find loads more info yourself: http://www.google.com

I chose the uncaused cause. And I choose to believe that it stops at the universe, not any god that's never had any known contact with the universe other then its supposed “creation” of it.

I do so for a number of reasons.

First, it's simpler. It cuts out a step, an unknowable being, and a lot of heartache.

Second, “god” did a mediocre job. As just one example of many: This universe is going to die someday, and I don't like that thought. Hell, an oscillating universe would be better. Better then that would be a steady state model. Or at least cut out the second law of thermodynamics, it sucks.

Quote:

KidgardFromSRQ said:
and to think that there is nothing above our physical realm of conciousness is ignorance.




To have a dead-set, rather absolutist idea of something that is unknowable strikes me as a most profound arrogance, and generally bad policy.

Quote:

KidgardFromSRQ said:
the morals that we follow ultimatley though, all have the belief of god at base. and these morals were handed down by god to handed down from man by god. that's what you fail to see, the unlogical chance of that.




What you fail to see is my above post. What you also fail to see is the many philosophies that dealt with ethics with virtually no mention of god. I'll list a few of my favorites: Objectivism, Utilitarianism, and Kantism are all rather interesting.

What you also fail to see is that ethical systems fit perfectly if you consider humans within an evolutionary context as pack animals that developed higher cognitive functions, and the technology to make needless the killing of the next pack that yours may survive.

Quote:

KidgardFromSRQ said:
you guys are right though, i am hung up on the idea of morality. but, we can't yet prove there is a god who handed these morals down to man. so its only logical to assume that these morals were created by man. but then again, when i see stuff like a code behind the bible being found which accuratley prophecises... it has to make you wonder.




No, it doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code


--------------------
If you don't ask the question, you always get it wrong.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXanthas
Blaspheme,blaspheyou, Blaspheverybody

Registered: 11/19/05
Posts: 267
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: ?? [Re: Veritas]
    #5696243 - 05/31/06 07:28 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
I am not saying that stereotypes do not exist, I am saying that the numbers do not support an assertion that women are being let off the hook by juries. In fact, convictions of women have steadily increased over the last ten years.

Still, most arrests (78%) are of men, most criminal trials involve male defendants, most guilty AND not-guilty jury verdicts involve a male defendant, and therefore most of the inmates in state and federal prisons are men.




Quote:

Veritas said:
Women are vastly underrepresented in State (7%) and Federal (5%) prisons, as well.




22% of arrests and 7/5% of inmates? Your own words seem to be a bit off. your numbers would seem to indicate a significantly lower conviction rate.

(I never promised anything about going off topic, hehe. I have, however, almost forgotten what I'm debating about.)


--------------------
If you don't ask the question, you always get it wrong.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Are humanists the new Flat Earth Society? Conservationist 963 15 03/15/09 07:24 AM
by Omegachrist
* Humanist Ideals and Determinism XUL 180 0 10/02/13 12:31 AM
by XUL
* influencing perception...propoganda TameMe 628 4 02/13/06 09:59 PM
by MushmanTheManic
* Stripping Away Outside Influences
( 1 2 all )
Veritas 2,694 31 04/16/07 06:29 PM
by leery11
* Who are your philosophical influences?
( 1 2 all )
Silversoul 2,562 21 04/19/10 05:02 PM
by BrainChemistry
* Influencing random numbers... Jared 2,695 18 03/22/03 04:18 AM
by xganon
* Catholic Influences on Mazatec Shamanism, and Taboo Questions
( 1 2 all )
zzripz 3,935 31 09/30/09 01:58 PM
by cyb3rtr0n
* zodiac influence felix 1,653 14 03/17/02 11:31 PM
by felix

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,792 topic views. 1 members, 10 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.