But what is the reason for correlation? Is it that people that have children are more likely to hold conservative views? Or does being conservative lead to having more children? I used to be a liberal, but after I became a parent I started to find myself following more of the conservative platform.
The point is that there *IS* no correlation between promiscuousness and parenthood.
There hasn't been a correlation, at least in 1st-world countries, since the invention of the pill.
There certainly isn't a correlation in the homosexual community.
The point is that promiscuousness and pregnancy have no correlation anymore.
It's a well known fact that liberals have fewer children than conservatives.
Shhh! Don't let facts get in the way of the GP's opinions. He believes that all sex = male/female unprotected intercourse with no access to abortion. Therefore, all sex leads to babies.
Seriously, have you ever met a liberal couple that had a LARGE family? Pretty rare. Now how many of you know a conservative couple that have a large family? PLENTY of those. Just go to Sunday mass and count.
I hear so many of the far leftists say "stop breeding" and such mantra to that effect, but you are unquestionably the most promiscuous people there are.
Ah... we see where you come from. All sex = for reproduction.
Who do you think is having more babies?
A. Religious conservatives (All religions, not just Christian/Catholic)
or
B. Gay couples, "hippie" couples, atheists, feminists, etc.
"promiscuousness" has little or no correlation to population growth. It hasn't really, since 1960 - when the Pill was invented.
But people with attitudes like yours are still living in the "Leave it to Beaver" world of the 1950s, so you probably didn't notice.
Why not? What better way to teach kids to examine and weigh evidence. After all, if Intelligent Design truly is hogwash, then what is everyone afraid of? Won't the scientific method disprove it quickly anyway?
Intelligent Design cannot be "disproved". By its nature as a belief system, it cannot be empirically disproven. But you already knew that.
The scientific method cannot be used to disprove the Tooth Fairy either.
I have a very non-scientific and "gut" feeling that, one day, we are going to
discover that a diet based upon whole, un-processed foods is probably the healthiest of all.
Er, don't most people think that already? Does anyone seriously think that a diet of McBurgers, doughnuts, coffee and coca cola is good for you in any way?
Note: I'm not claiming that evolution is wrong. I am claiming that you are an asshole for insulting this guy's religion.
Frankly, some religions need to be insulted.
(personally, I think ALL religions are frauds... but that's just me).
But all religions aren't beyond criticism. Do you think EVERY religion, regardless of what it teaches, is worthy of repect and tolerance?
Sorry, bub... but some religions and religious nuts need to be called out for their kookiness and insulted to the n-th degree.
Scientology, for one, is worthy of NO respect whatsoever... it's not even a real religion. It's creator came up with it on a cocktail napkin on a bet...
Frankly... some of the shit people believe needs to be ridiculed. They need to be completely embarrassed out of their blind stupor.
Their mission is to "The ALL Species Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to the complete inventory of all species of life on Earth within the next 25 years - a human generation."
yes, 99.9% of all species have gone extinct before mankind came around. but it matters when a creature goes extinct not because of meteors, or climate change, or volcanoes, or what not
but because of us
Why? Despite what people like to think... we are part of nature. Anything we do is, by definition, "natural".
If a species goes extinct because of our activities, predatory or otherwise, it is no different than if something goes extinct because of the actions of any other species.
We are part of the ecosystem of this planet, and anything we do is part of that. The only difference is that we can evaluate the results of our actions along the way.
But the things we do are not inherently "unnatural"... they are the collective behaviors of a particular species on this planet... no different than any other species.
Furthermore, for this to truly be considered "evolution" then a lactose intolerant individual would no longer be able to mate with a tolerant one as the two would be a different species.
As someone who is lactose tolerant, I know that *I* won't mate with someone who is lactose intolerant.
If you can't eat ice cream or cheese pizza, I'm not fucking you. That's messed up.;-)
Yes.. but.... how did the kangaroos get to Australia... and only Australia?
How did Noah get them to a land that he didn't even know existed, thousands of miles away....
... and didn't put any ANYWHERE else?
Here's how: Because the Noah flood story is complete fiction. It is a story told by Moses to his flock of illiterate followers who needed simplistic explanations to the phenomena around them because their minds were too child-like to comprehend anything more complex.
One experience I had was that I can recall large portions of a movie like I had watched it before. I could swear I watched it a few years ago but it was only released for the first time recently. Very spooky experience.
That's not deja vu. There are only about 5 basic plots that movie makers continuously recycle.
Just about EVERY movie gives one the experience of "having seen this before" because you probably have, just with a different title and character names.
The Pixar movie "Cars" gave me this feeling... until I realized it was simply the Michael J. Fox movie "Doc Hollywood" with animated cars as the characters.
No movie plots are original. Everything has been done before.
If you are watching a movie and *DON'T* have the feeling that you've seen this before, then that movie probably deserves an Oscar simply by being original.
So where do you draw the line? Let's assume just for conversation sake that life begins at conception. At what point do you consider it a "life" such that it should not be ethically terminated? Conception? Embryo? Fetus? Partially-delivered? Delivered? 18 months after delivery? 10 years after delivery? 65 years after delivery?
Ooooh, I'd love to see answers to this. Not just from the original poster but from everyone. We know that the religious faithful are making their decision not based on logic and reason, but I posit that most who believe they are making the rational decision (usually that destroying an embryo is very different than killing a baby) are doing so based on emotion and not on reason at all.
So an embryo doesn't count as a 'person' but a newborn does. Why? Where's the line where 'personhood' was achieved? What's your very logical, reasonable and scientific explanation for where you drew that line? I'd like to hear people take on this.
for me.. it is this:
As a society we have all agreed that death is when the brain stops functioning... when consciousness ceases.
Using that definition of death, I think the definition of life should be the onset of consciousness. How do we measure consciousness? With brain imaging we can tell what consciousness looks like in a grown human, so we can posit that it looks the same for a fetus.
My personal opinion is that abortion is ok up to the time when the fetus obtains measurable consciousness. After that time, it is taking a human life.... i.e. snuffing out a conscious human.
I don't remember exactly, but I think this time is somewhere around 10 or 12 weeks. So.... I don't have a problem with first-trimester abortions. After that, it's a little different.
Why do we find it so easy to define "death" but so hard to define "life"? To me it is as plain as day... whatever we accept as the definition of "death", the inverse is the definition of "life".
Brain (specifically the cerebrum) working = life
Brain not working = not life
Agnes heard on the radio a traffic report about a car going the wrong way down highway 69 causing accidents left and right. Alarmed because that is the route her husband Howard takes every morning, she calls him on the cell phone to warn him.
"Howard! Please be careful, honey. The radio is reporting that some maniac is driving the wrong way down route 69!"
To which an exasperated Howard replies, "One maniac!?? There's dozens of them!"
AllofMP3's rights derived from a Soviet government asserted right to any and all intellectual property being broadcast within the Soviet Union. That the Soviet government had no such rights to distribute intellectual properties from the holders of those properties was irrelevant to the Soviet government. The only intellectual property rights they were interested in were those of the state's. Anything the state produced or condoned was fine, and rights to those were distributed (if needed) by the state. Intellectual property that was not condoned was forbidden, and rights to those were irrelevant.
The "Soviet" government hasn't existed since 1991. It's been the "Russian" government for 15 years.
OK, this actually isn't a joke post, despite the subject line...
Many people who grew up in the Soviet Union in the 70's and 80's attribute the influence of bootleg copies of Western rock music to the eventual opening up of the Soviet Union. It seems to me that iPods could potentially have a similar role, and we're cutting that off.
Shouldn't we be flooding N.K. with as much cheap communications / recording equipment as possible?
One big difference... Western rock music in the 70s and 80s was good. Today's music sucks. We're doing them a favor by restricting their access to it.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that there *IS* no correlation between promiscuousness and parenthood.
There hasn't been a correlation, at least in 1st-world countries, since the invention of the pill.
There certainly isn't a correlation in the homosexual community.
The point is that promiscuousness and pregnancy have no correlation anymore.
Shhh! Don't let facts get in the way of the GP's opinions. He believes that all sex = male/female unprotected intercourse with no access to abortion. Therefore, all sex leads to babies.
Seriously, have you ever met a liberal couple that had a LARGE family? Pretty rare. Now how many of you know a conservative couple that have a large family? PLENTY of those. Just go to Sunday mass and count.
Ah... we see where you come from. All sex = for reproduction.
Who do you think is having more babies?
A. Religious conservatives (All religions, not just Christian/Catholic)
or
B. Gay couples, "hippie" couples, atheists, feminists, etc.
"promiscuousness" has little or no correlation to population growth. It hasn't really, since 1960 - when the Pill was invented.
But people with attitudes like yours are still living in the "Leave it to Beaver" world of the 1950s, so you probably didn't notice.
Intelligent Design cannot be "disproved". By its nature as a belief system, it cannot be empirically disproven. But you already knew that.
The scientific method cannot be used to disprove the Tooth Fairy either.
Um... Homer Simpson?
Wouldn't that be... "The Fighting Mongeese"?
No... it's an IFO. We KNOW what it is... it has been identified.
Actually... it *WAS* and IFO. Now it is an IFFO (Identified, formerly-flying object).
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvKNGoIVwc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvKNGoIVwc
You think a two-headed reptile is interesting.... Check this out.
Frankly, some religions need to be insulted.
(personally, I think ALL religions are frauds... but that's just me).
But all religions aren't beyond criticism. Do you think EVERY religion, regardless of what it teaches, is worthy of repect and tolerance?
Sorry, bub... but some religions and religious nuts need to be called out for their kookiness and insulted to the n-th degree.
Scientology, for one, is worthy of NO respect whatsoever... it's not even a real religion. It's creator came up with it on a cocktail napkin on a bet...
Frankly... some of the shit people believe needs to be ridiculed. They need to be completely embarrassed out of their blind stupor.
Religion is supposed to deal with the "why". But most fundamentalists in most modern religions claim divine knowledge of the what, how, and when also.
The book of Genesis is not about the "why"... it is the what, how, and when to many misguided fundamentalist Christians and Jews.
Since new species are always being generated and old ones going extinct continuously, this organization will NEVER be able to fullfil their charter.
If a species goes extinct because of our activities, predatory or otherwise, it is no different than if something goes extinct because of the actions of any other species.
We are part of the ecosystem of this planet, and anything we do is part of that. The only difference is that we can evaluate the results of our actions along the way.
But the things we do are not inherently "unnatural"... they are the collective behaviors of a particular species on this planet... no different than any other species.
Not until January 3rd, they aren't.
As someone who is lactose tolerant, I know that *I* won't mate with someone who is lactose intolerant.
If you can't eat ice cream or cheese pizza, I'm not fucking you. That's messed up. ;-)
How did Noah get them to a land that he didn't even know existed, thousands of miles away....
Here's how: Because the Noah flood story is complete fiction. It is a story told by Moses to his flock of illiterate followers who needed simplistic explanations to the phenomena around them because their minds were too child-like to comprehend anything more complex.
That's not deja vu. There are only about 5 basic plots that movie makers continuously recycle.
Just about EVERY movie gives one the experience of "having seen this before" because you probably have, just with a different title and character names.
The Pixar movie "Cars" gave me this feeling... until I realized it was simply the Michael J. Fox movie "Doc Hollywood" with animated cars as the characters.
No movie plots are original. Everything has been done before.
If you are watching a movie and *DON'T* have the feeling that you've seen this before, then that movie probably deserves an Oscar simply by being original.
for me.. it is this:
As a society we have all agreed that death is when the brain stops functioning... when consciousness ceases.
Using that definition of death, I think the definition of life should be the onset of consciousness. How do we measure consciousness? With brain imaging we can tell what consciousness looks like in a grown human, so we can posit that it looks the same for a fetus.
My personal opinion is that abortion is ok up to the time when the fetus obtains measurable consciousness. After that time, it is taking a human life.... i.e. snuffing out a conscious human.
I don't remember exactly, but I think this time is somewhere around 10 or 12 weeks. So.... I don't have a problem with first-trimester abortions. After that, it's a little different.
Why do we find it so easy to define "death" but so hard to define "life"? To me it is as plain as day... whatever we accept as the definition of "death", the inverse is the definition of "life".
Brain (specifically the cerebrum) working = life
Brain not working = not life
Therefore... embryos != human life
"Ain't nothing like these ribs nowhere."
Triple negative! Woohooo! Only Americans can be that creative with the English language and still make their point perfectly.
"bad grammar" is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.
I know *I* can't. Damn proprietary hardware. Anyone ever seen an API for paper bags, specifically wet ones? Damn hard to find one.
Now... *plastic* bags, that's another thing. I can code my way out of all kinds of plastic bags. But hey... who can't?
Agnes heard on the radio a traffic report about a car going the wrong way down highway 69 causing accidents left and right. Alarmed because that is the route her husband Howard takes every morning, she calls him on the cell phone to warn him.
"Howard! Please be careful, honey. The radio is reporting that some maniac is driving the wrong way down route 69!"
To which an exasperated Howard replies, "One maniac!?? There's dozens of them!"
A lady walks into a bar with a bulldog on a leash. The bartender says, "hey! You can't bring that ugly, flea-ridden thing in here!"
The lady says, "How dare you talk about my dog that way!"
The bartender says, "I was talking to the dog!"
The "Soviet" government hasn't existed since 1991. It's been the "Russian" government for 15 years.
You're showing your age. ;-)
One big difference... Western rock music in the 70s and 80s was good. Today's music sucks. We're doing them a favor by restricting their access to it.