quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: As opposed to a majority that supports no family rights I wonder? I'm not saying that is the 2 options, I'm just wondering if the argument could be boiled down to that. Because I think that is how a lot of us feel. That is how I feel.
What is how you feel? That gay rights can't exist without hurting family rights? You seem to have just said you're not saying something even though that's how you feel. I'm confused.
On the other hand, if you're truly not saying these are the only two options, I can only read this as a glib response. You're free to try to clarify though.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Levitt, from what I've been able to gather from various writtings on the web, did a very thorough job of statistical analysis. Economists are equipped with exactly the right set of tools such things - all of the course work of the ph.d are focused on teaching the students how the tools work, and how to properly apply them. And Levitt works at Chicago, in probably the most mathematically-rigourous department in the world.
This isn't really new work. He first published a co-authored paper on the topic of abortion and crime rates in the late '90s. If there'd been major objections to the statistical analysis he did of the work by, he wouldn't have published in Freakanomics, if only because he would lose some credibility in the economic world by deliberately spreading false information.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The one thing that simply doesn't work with this abortion leads to low crime theory is that it doesn't actually line up with the rest of the stats.
Despite abortion, the fraction of children living in single parent homes is on the rise. Despite abortion, a larger and larger fraction of US children are living below poverty level. Despite abortion, a larger fraction of US children are born to minority and underprivileged parents.
In fact, in every group that has a higher rate of criminalism, there is a higher birth rate than in groups with low criminal rates.
What about in the 70's and 80's?
If what you are saying is right, and IF it is a factor for the crime rate, then it would take 15-20 years for these kids to grow up to the age where they commit crime. I almost want to believe that the two aren't connected now... makes the future look grim.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point, human. *If* this connection is true, then abortion has only been a temporary "fix" and the worst is yet to come.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you guys are missing the *point* of the analysis. Saying that abortion is inversely correlated with time-lagged crime rates doesn't mean that abortion is the only factor influencing crime rates, or evern the largest one. It's simply saying "holding everything else constant" an increase in abortion is correlated with a time-lagged decrease in crime rates. That "everything" that is being held constant includes things like a higher number or percentage of children living below the poverty line, larger percentages of minority children, and anything else you can think of.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if that's a respone to me, Jhai, but even if his stats are rigorous, that doesn't mean his causal analysis is. Proving causality with stats requires controlled experiments beyond that he appears to have done (likely in part because they're not possible). Absent that, all one can make is a logical argument, and the stats by the guy I referenced certainly undermine the logical argument, which involves assumptions such as abortion leading to an decrease in unwanted births.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm not sure if that's a respone to me, Jhai, but even if his stats are rigorous, that doesn't mean his causal analysis is. Proving causality with stats requires controlled experiments beyond that he appears to have done (likely in part because they're not possible). Absent that, all one can make is a logical argument, and the stats by the guy I referenced certainly undermine the logical argument, which involves assumptions such as abortion leading to an decrease in unwanted births.
But I have no problem to his reports on it, as long as he presented them like he did in the book....he didn't draw the same conclusions Card did from them, that is for sure, at least not that I remember.
It would be interesting to discuss this with him and see what he thinks about this conversation, and about the way Card attempted to use his book to support claims that can't possibly be proven, given his disdain for people who try to warp statistics....and given the conclusions Card drew from them.
quote:That "everything" that is being held constant includes things like a higher number or percentage of children living below the poverty line, larger percentages of minority children, and anything else you can think of
Not to mention the rise in technology like DNA sampling that allowed the police to track and convict many more people, and the rise in spending on crime prevention methods and police spending.
I know that in this area we had more police per person on the streets than ever before about 5-6 years ago, and crime dropped a huge amount...and as soon as the city began cutting the police presence due to budget constraints we had a HUGE influx of violent crime, at least compared to previous years. Almost double the murders and violent assaults in half the time period.
But I am sure if we look hard enough we can discount that fact and find a way to blame the Pill and abortion again. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't imagine for a second that I haven't considered living outside the bounds of the Church, and how much easier, freer, and more fun that might be. Don't think that many of us haven't tried it.
In the end, I live as a Mormon, not because I am ignorant of the rest of the world, but because I have made a value judgment about what I want out of life. I share the ideals of the Church. I want what it has to offer. I appreciate the way my life changes when I align my choices with the teachings of the prophets. I love the kind of community that is created by many people trying to do the same thing.
I greatly disagree with the idea that living outside of the LDS church (or any highly structured organization) is inherently easier that living inside of it. Freer, most definately. But that very freedom can make life very difficult. You have a very clear path set before you by the teachings of your prophets and as you said, you try to live by it. I'm sure that following it is not always easy for you. But at the same time, choosing to live by that path frees you from the process of making a myraid of difficult decisions. I have lived in a highly structured organization and I have lived outside of one. Both certainly have their pros and cons, but I think it's silly to say that one way is clearly "easier."
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No...it was a REALLY long, personal post about my family history, and the fact that Card just lumped people I know (although I am not related to them) into a huge, genetically deficiant population groups...and then said that their child was "murdered" for crime prevention, rather than aborted to save her life.
quote:You have a very clear path set before you by the teachings of your prophets and as you said, you try to live by it. I'm sure that following it is not always easy for you. But at the same time, choosing to live by that path frees you from the process of making a myraid of difficult decisions. I have lived in a highly structured organization and I have lived outside of one. Both certainly have their pros and cons, but I think it's silly to say that one way is clearly "easier."
I didn't mean to suggest that living outside the Church was easier in every way. Just that at certain points in my life, certain situations would probably have been easier for me to handle, had I not felt bound to live by the moral code and community that I had attached my life to. Then again, in retrospect, I think that the choices I did make were good ones, and ultimately led to greater happiness than the "easier" choices would have.
Your suggestion that decisions become easier to make once you have signed on to a way of life like mine is problematic to me. If you mean "easier" in the sense that my religion provides encouragement and direction that help me make better decisions, then yes, I suppose so. If you mean to suggest that my decisions are "easier" because I somehow think about them less or consider fewer alternatives, then you're wrong about me.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy, I think you must be able to agree that living inside and outside the church is just as hard for opposite reasons. One side, because the choices are "already made" and the other because the choices aren't "already made". (I say "already made" in quotes because as you pointed out you don't actually have to follow your church's rules.)
The choice between what is right and what is easy ( ) does not belong exclusively to one "side" or the other...
It's not "easier" or "more fun" to live outside the church. Those outside the church have the same moral questions to come face to face with. They have the same devils and the same angels, temptations, wishes and fears. We just don't have so many rules (you used the words "encouragement and direction" which are sort of equivalent to "guidelines") already made regarding them.
I don't deny that it's probably a lot "freer" to live outside the church, though, because of the smaller set of guidelines.
If you mean to suggest that my decisions are "easier" because I somehow have less moral reasons to make "good" decisions, then you're wrong about me.
See, it works either way. The church and its members does not have the monopoly on morals or values.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's pretty much what I was getting at, that the people he was lumping together into one nice little group were very different, and his attempts to fit them all into a nice neat catigory was insulting, even if it wasn't intended to be.
Not everyone who gets an abortion wants one, or has poor impulse control, nor does every woman on the Pill. As a matter of fact, a lot of women are on teh Pill long after they are able to have children, and some are put on it for completely medical reasons....but if the Pill wasn't available to them then what?
Or do we only outlaw/restrict it for controlling reproductive functons...and if so who regulates that? Is a woman on the Pill for medical reasons treated differently than someone who is looked down upon and labeled as having poor impluse control... when though she needs it for MULTIPLE reasons, not "just" birth control?
There are a lot of ways to live a good life, and while the Mormon way works for you it may not for others...adnI object to anyone who thinks they have a lock on the truth, as if there was only one truth for all people.
There isn't, not for situations like thins.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I appreciate the serious responses and consideration given my last post. Thanks.
To be clear, I like many of the Mormons/religious social conservatives on this board. I would enjoy having a beer with any of you.
I recognize that Mormonism has a lot of truth to it and works for many people. I just am frustrated in the breakdown in understanding, or the lack of desire to understand, that seems to occur quite frequently when discussing things, and this frustration kind of vented itself in this thread.
posted
It's nice to be thought of as a likeable yet close-minded lackwit. Assuming you were speaking of me and not anyone else. I expect other Mormons will be thrilled.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I don't know. I don't care. I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at.
Rakeesh, I'm not going to lie to you or anyone else about how I view the general character of most of the Mormons/religious conservatives after my three+ years here. What would be the purpose? I have seen things the way I have seen them. Lying to you won't change what I have seen to be true here. If you want to believe that my perceptions are false, so be it. I respect that. But I do like you and a lot of the other Mormons, etc. on this board.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
You're one of my favorite Mormons on this board, you know. I kind of have you, Geoff, Beverly, and Rabbit in the 'Mormons that are fun to have a converation with' and whose posts I enjoy reading. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'm getting at is that I think you'd be pretty angry at that sort of talk if it were, say, about Muslims. Or about blacks. Or that sort of 'clarification' coming from President Bush.
"You're mostly a bunch of intolerent, close-minded twits. But you're OK!"
You know, for all that many complain-with some justification-how oppressive the social conservative atmosphere and demographic here can be sometimes...I can't remember the last time I heard something so directly intolerent and offensive stated so baldly.
Spare me your explanations.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone said that I, as a white American, should presume that I know the reality of Muslims or blacks, and presume that I know what's best for them, or have an opinion on a situation pertinent to them, without listening to what they have to say first, I would say they were full of crap.
If, after discussion with Muslims and blacks, I totally ignored what they said and continued to insert my reality for their own, I would be full of crap.
Edit: I don't mean to say that after listening to someone, you can't or shouldn't disagree with them. I do say you should make the effort to understand where they are coming from and not totally ignore what they are saying.
Now, even though I might be full of crap, if the Muslim or black person was insightful, they would see that there was plenty of other common ground to be found with me--that we liked some of the same movies, food, games, and whatnot, and they could enjoy my company for that, despite the fact that I was obviously unable to listen to them regarding their experiences as a black/Muslim. I rather suspect this is how some people of the various 'races' in this country get along day to day. 'She's an ignorant WASP, he's an insensitive spic. They fight crime!'
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think you guys are missing the *point* of the analysis. Saying that abortion is inversely correlated with time-lagged crime rates doesn't mean that abortion is the only factor influencing crime rates, or evern the largest one
In the book Levitt also discussed other correlations:
Innovative policing strategies Increased reliance on prisons Changes in crack and other drug markets Aging of the population Tougher gun contorl laws Strong economy Increased number of police
3 can be said to contribute to the drop in crime. Which 3? He plays these guessing games in the book.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On behalf of the Mormons on this board, I thank you for the much-needed lesson in tolerance and listening.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any of you guys hear about Michelle Wie turning pro? The female Tiger Woods? She's projected to make 10 mill a year in endorsments (she's 15 years old).
Fossil fuels being solely responsible for global warming is a fairy tale.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. It is not idea to make assumptions about characteristics being shared by an entire group of people - mainly because those assumptions are almost always false. Even if many Mormons you have met are closed-minded, it is possible and even likely that there are some that are not, and thus being Mormon should not be said to imply closed-mindedness. The same is true for almost any blanket claims about groups of people, except those that are true by definition.
2. It is not a good idea to presume the reality of anyone other than yourself, because you don't. Period. However, it IS a good idea to speculate on the matter for the sake of argument, as long as you remember it is hypothetical, because without doing that you could never draw conclusions about what others should or should not do, and most discussion about stuff like this would be impossible.
3. It is not a good idea to call people closed-minded, because you don't really know, and closed-minded people wouldn't recognize they are closed-minded anyway. Furthermore, whether or not so-and-so is closed minded is not relevant to whether or not their arguments and views are valid. It's only relevent to explaining WHY they hold the views they do, which is yet another piece of speculation that you can't really know, and don't really need to know to figure out whether those views are good views to hold.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I'm getting at is that I think you'd be pretty angry at that sort of talk if it were, say, about Muslims. Or about blacks. Or that sort of 'clarification' coming from President Bush.
"You're mostly a bunch of intolerent, close-minded twits. But you're OK!"
You know, for all that many complain-with some justification-how oppressive the social conservative atmosphere and demographic here can be sometimes...I can't remember the last time I heard something so directly intolerent and offensive stated so baldly.
Spare me your explanations.
The theatrics are entertaining, but heh, good lord, son. He's not describing all Irishmen or Germans as -- in your interpretation -- "intolerent, close-minded twits." He's describing a community bound by similar thoughts and biases -- and as such, he has every right to criticize that culture as close-minded or intolerant.
Your Muslim example is dead-on -- if a Muslim were supporting mandatory burqas on women, as an example, and he were representative of his particular sect, his particular flavor of Muslim culture is, in fact, misogynistic and intolerant.
Your black example is, well, stupid.
Clearer? Or are you still hellbent on slapping the back of your hand to your forehead and calling for the executioner to do his worst?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, Eddie. I shouldn't be irritated when called intolerent, close-minded, and generally stupid. I'm just being theatrical when I say I'm upset by it.
'similar thoughts and biases' does not equal 'close-minded and intolerent'. Ugh. It would appear I'm the only one irritated by this at all. You're an ignorant, close-minded, intolerant lackwit, Eddie. But I like you just fine.
Now tell me all about how if I said that to you and I were serious, you wouldn't be upset, too.
quote:So, they shoudn't make comments about what is destructive to other people before getting those people's opinion, because they don't understand what is true and might work for non-religious social conservatives. When they get their opinions, Mormons and other religious conservatives should defer to them, understanding that they don't understand, and they need to defer to the person with understanding.
Likewise, non-religious social conservatives should let Mormons, etc, live their own lives and defer to their opinions on their reality.
Mormons specifically grow up in a culture that is alien to most of the people in the U.S., with beliefs which leave you unable to appreciate anything that you've been taught lies in the category of sinful. All you want to do is make the rest of the world more Mormon-like. That's your answer for everything. "Our beliefs work really well, and if you just became more like us and believed what we do, you'd be much happier!" You're always a missionary for Mormonism. It never stops.
If someone said that I, as a white American, should presume that I know the reality of Muslims or blacks, and presume that I know what's best for them, or have an opinion on a situation pertinent to them, without listening to what they have to say first, I would say they were full of crap.
If, after discussion with Muslims and blacks, I totally ignored what they said and continued to insert my reality for their own, I would be full of crap.
Edit: I don't mean to say that after listening to someone, you can't or shouldn't disagree with them. I do say you should make the effort to understand where they are coming from and not totally ignore what they are saying.
That said, as adorably dramatic as Jeff is, I also disagree with Storm's views before he clarified them. Mormons are religious, not mentally handicapped. They're still sentient beings, and perfectly capable of passing reasonable judgement on another culture's actions -- if some aren't equipped to back up those judgements, it's a matter of their individual stupidity or ignorance, not their religion.
Or will you tell me I can't criticize, as a drastic example, the fundamentalist Islamic religions across the Middle East because I didn't grow up immersed in one?
Arguments should be considered independent of their sources -- flawed sources often produce flawed arguments, but Card's earlier essays serve as warning, and nothing more, to the quality of his future ones. Any points he manages to raise shouldn't be judged by his identity, but by their independent worth.
That said, it's a pretty weak essay. Card's demagoguery is laughable -- or does he think nobody can tell he's trying to villainize the pro-choice movement by arguing abortion keeps crime down? Jonathan Swift he's not.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
If we agree with you, or change some of our opinions because of your arguments, we're open minded.
If we don't, we're closed minded.
We could just as well say you're closed minded for not changing your mind about the things you believe to be true. Give me a break.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please note that I get equally annoyed when OSC accuses the entire "intellectual elite" of being closed minded because they don't agree with him and won't change their minds no matter what he says.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:'similar thoughts and biases' does not equal 'close-minded and intolerent'. Ugh. It would appear I'm the only one irritated by this at all. You're an ignorant, close-minded, intolerant lackwit, Eddie. But I like you just fine.
Now tell me all about how if I said that to you and I were serious, you wouldn't be upset, too.
I give up.
No, "similar thoughts and biases" indicates a single culture, or, to spell it out, an environment defined by a community's similar beliefs and biases. This could be anything from the LDS church to College Democrats. You're perfectly free to judge stated opinions close-minded or intolerant -- and if those beliefs reflect the views of an entire culture, you're free to judge the beliefs of that culture as intolerant. Clearer?
That said, you posted before I addressed Storm's arguments. I disagree with him, emphatically, and I think he's being as close-minded as the religious fundamentalists he so dislikes. These are some pretty ignorant arguments, padawan. You're smarter than that.
Thank god Jeff's around to make you look good...
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, well Eddie, you and I have talked about this before. You do think religious people are brainwashed and stupid for believing in something that any intelligent person could see isn't there.
Don't patronize me, please. It's not cute, it's not funny, and it's not effective.
But beyond that, I'm done talking about it. I won't waste anymore time telling people that no, in fact, I'm not close-minded and intolerent...because after all, that's a waste of time.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, it seems to me that Eddie has possibly modified his opinions a bit from views expressed in previous years. Why not view it as progress and encourage it rather than telling him what you know he thinks he thinks now?
OSC is such a good novelist, yet I have to agree with Lalo that he isn't nearly as good at cogent op-eds as his own characters are, regardless of whether he's attempting a Locke or Demothsenes essay.
quote: It is not a good idea to call people closed-minded, because you don't really know, and closed-minded people wouldn't recognize they are closed-minded anyway.
Well, one might hope, but it's highly doubtful.
quote: So let me get this straight, Storm Saxon.
If we agree with you, or change some of our opinions because of your arguments, we're open minded.
If we don't, we're closed minded.
We could just as well say you're closed minded for not changing your mind about the things you believe to be true. Give me a break.
It has nothing to do with agreeing with me. Nowhere in this thread have I said that, or implied that.
What I have said, in a nutshell, is that you should recognize, and be honest about, why you believe what you believe and how you approach life and the fact that belonging to a religious community brings a price with it. Recognize that you are very much different from others who don't share your beliefs and aren't a part of your religious community, and that you approach things in life to justify your faith rather than believe things that will undermine it. This is the price you pay for belonging to a religious community with static beliefs that puts a strong priority on shunning salacious experience.
I'm not asking that you agree with me. I'm asking that you recognize the limitations on your knowledge and that your perception of how things are is not absolute fact, or even like true for a most people.
I believe that, given my first paragraph, this is probably not going to happen, but I just ask that you keep it in the back of your mind and not make generalized comments like OSC that imply that people who don't believe as you do are some kind of social deviants, o.k.?
By the way, I'm not saying, as one goof is suggesting, that Mormons are generally stupid. Because of their culture, they tend to be very intelligent and healthy individuals.
I'm also not claiming, as that same goof is suggesting, that Mormons are edit: generally intolerant. Many of you practice hating the sin but loving the sinner. However, this doesn't change the fact that you will always believe that some things are absolutely sinful.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Recognize .. . that you approach things in life to justify your faith rather than believe things that will undermine it.
I can agree with most of what you said but this statement if patently unfair. It is fair to say, I can show you education studies that back this up, that nearly all people tend to embrace things that reinforce their world view and reject or at least avoid anything that will undermine their world view. In this respect, Mormons, in general, are no different thant anyone else. When it comes to specifics, some of the individual Mormon's I've known are among the best critical thinkers I've ever dealt with. These specific individuals are more aware of the assumptions that underlie their faith than almost anyone I've known. Of course these individuals are not typical of church members, but they aren't typical of any group in our society.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, well Eddie, you and I have talked about this before. You do think religious people are brainwashed and stupid for believing in something that any intelligent person could see isn't there.
Don't patronize me, please. It's not cute, it's not funny, and it's not effective.
But beyond that, I'm done talking about it. I won't waste anymore time telling people that no, in fact, I'm not close-minded and intolerent...because after all, that's a waste of time.
Wrong again, as you were wrong before. Don't you get tired of repeating the same lies over and over again? I know we vote Republican, but it really doesn't make it truth.
^see? Joke made about beliefs!
I could cite examples from my life to show you how wrong you are, but then, I have many times before, and yet you persist in accusing me of lies all the more absurd for the reasons accounting for my absence from Hatrack. Suffice it to say, you're wrong. I have yet to see any logical discrimination between various religions, and believe most religious convictions are those fed by one to one's self -- but then, my actual beliefs are so much more difficult for you to demonize, aren't they?
It's astonishing how easily you take offense at someone doing the same to you.
Now, keep to your word. Flip your hair dramatically and march on out of the thread. Just remember to slam the door behind you or the audience might not fully understand how tragic your suffering of us idiots is.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I have said, in a nutshell, is that you should recognize, and be honest about, why you believe what you believe and how you approach life and the fact that belonging to a religious community brings a price with it. Recognize that you are very much different from others who don't share your beliefs and aren't a part of your religious community, and that you approach things in life to justify your faith rather than believe things that will undermine it.
I know I am different from others. How could any Mormon, especially those who post on Hatrack, not know that many people don't find premarital sex wrong or drinking coffee wrong or having a family essential? I know you don't agree with me; I don't expect you to.
I also think that every Mormon on this board has questioned his or her beliefs at one point or another. I know I have, especially relating to homosexual marriage. Just because I haven't changed my mind on abortion doesn't mean I haven't thought the issue through, that I blindly accept the teachings of my church. What I'm saying is that all you see is the action, so you cannot judge the thought or lack thereof that lead to it.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I'm surprisingly un-annoyed at Lalo, at least for the moment
quote:What I have said, in a nutshell, is that you should recognize, and be honest about, why you believe what you believe and how you approach life and the fact that belonging to a religious community brings a price with it. Recognize that you are very much different from others who don't share your beliefs and aren't a part of your religious community, and that you approach things in life to justify your faith rather than believe things that will undermine it.
Storm, I'm pretty sure that I wasn't meant to be the direct subject of this paragraph, but I felt like it was being indirectly applied to me, in any case, and I thought I should respond.
My entire life has been defined by tension between what I believe through faith and what I observe through experience, or learn from other sources. Many of my observations back up my faith. Others do not. But I cannot dismiss something simply because it disagrees with my religion. Some people can think that way, and feel completely secure in the truth of their beliefs, and I think that they are the ones you are talking to in the paragraph I quoted above. But it takes more than that for me.
For me, "being honest about why I believe what I believe" means saying exactly what I've been saying from the beginning here. I value what my people do well because I've seen it work, and I share their ultimate intent, because I have chosen to, and not because I've been told to think that way. When things DON'T work or DON'T make sense, I see that too, and I'm honest about it, which gets me in trouble on a certain other website
I love this Church, and I am absolutely aligned with its ultimate purpose, which is why I do not turn each little flaw I perceive into an excuse to turn all negative and bitter. That's why I defend it as though my life depended on it, in spite of the things that go wrong.
But don't take my positive feelings about the Church, my belief in its ideals and general methods, my faith in its doctrines, and my defense of it against naysayers, as a reason to think I am an unquestioning person who seeks out evidence to bolster his faith, rather than seeking truth for its own sake, regardless of the tension it causes.
posted
I just identified another hole in the abortion reduces crime argument.
In the 1950's and 60's, nearly all children born out of wedlock were given up for adoption. In fact, in many places the laws required a woman to give up her child for adoption if she was not married. So a very large fraction of the social group that is missing because of abortion, are children that were given up for adoption. Most of the criminals in the 70's and 80's were young men born during the 50's and 60's.
If the hypothesis that criminals are more likely to be aborted is correct, then we should find an unusually high of adopted individuals among the criminals in the 70s and 80s. I haven't done the stats, but my like experience suggests that this is very unlikely to be true.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Fossil fuels being solely responsible for global warming is a fairy tale.
I’ve never heard anyone claim they are. A large part of the cause, yes, but not solely responsible. Other things have an effect including burning the rainforests – not only in carbon being emitted but a carbon sink being lost(the trees that are removed). I’ve even heard discussion about the amount of methane produced by cows.
It is very easy to mock an argument if you only take part of it.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
