Jump to content

Vigile

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    28,287
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    188

Posts posted by Vigile

  1. 12 hours ago, ConsiderTheSource said:

     

    Wow.  Yes, there is the occasional odd ball exception.  Are you really going to stand on this and deny the victims any reasonable way to enforce their greivances???  Really?   Sounds a lot like the "You can't prove god does exist, so he must exist" argument if you ask me".

     

    My child was sexually abused by his Sunday School Teacher.  So were the two children in another family.  When multiple victims come forward something need to be done, and quickly, before there are more victims.  But, in 1990, their was no effective process.  I am glad times are changing for the better.  #metoo

     

    Huh? How am I denying victims any way to address their grievances? I have done nothing here but bolster the argument for innocent until proven guilty. That means everyone is afforded due process, otherwise we just create more victims and/or engage in vigilantism. I posted an example of mass hysteria because someone (perhaps it was you) argued in favor of railroading those who are accused simply on the basis of an accusation and not conviction in a court of law. I will not apologize. If that's you, then sorry, you're just wrong and history and the law are not on your side. 

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  2. 11 hours ago, ConsiderTheSource said:

    Now, when we reach 2, 3, 4 etc accusers the evidence of abuse becomes statistically overwhelming quite quickly, especially when paired with other outside evidence

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria

     

    The McMartin Preschool case was the first daycare abuse case to receive major media attention in the United States.[21] The case centered upon the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California, where seven teachers were accused of kidnapping children, flying them in a plane to another location, and forcing them to engage in group sex as well as forcing them to watch animals be tortured and killed.[21] The case also involved accusations that children had been forced to participate in bizarre religious rituals, and been used to make child pornography.[22] The case began with a single accusation, made by the mother - who was later found to be a paranoid schizophrenic[3] - of one of the students, but grew rapidly when investigators informed parents of the accusation and began interviewing other students.[22] The case made headlines nationwide in 1984, and seven teachers were arrested and charged that year.[22] When a new district attorney took over the case in 1986, however, his office re-examined the evidence and dropped charges against all but two of the original defendants. Their trials became one of the longest and most expensive criminal trials in the history of the United States,[22][1] but in 1990 all of these charges were also dropped.[21] Both jurors at the trial and academic researchers later criticized the interviewing techniques that investigators had used in their investigations of the school, alleging that interviewers had "coaxed" children into making unfounded accusations, repeatedly asking children the same questions and offering various incentives until the children reported having been abused.[21] Most scholars now agree that the accusations these interviews elicited from children were false.[23][24] Sociologist Mary de Young and historian Philip Jenkins have both cited the McMartin case as the prototype for a wave of similar accusations and investigations between 1983 and 1995, which constituted a moral panic.[25][22]

  3. Quote

    No one should be locked up on accusation alone without a criminal trial, but if the nature of the accusation is aggressive then businesses have a liability to terminate that person unless immediate evidence is found to exonerate them, such as a witness or camera.  

     

    Holy shit that is stupid, authoritarian and evil. I'm sure HR departments love it. This is a great example of why Americans need contracts with their employers and worker protections like the free, civilized world has. 

     

    I'm honestly starting to believe that liberals are more dangerous than conservatives. Willing to ruin a person's life (and yes, being fired for something like this would ruin most lives, and the lives of their wives and children too) for a mere allegation. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
  4. 8 hours ago, ConsiderTheSource said:

     

    You mind reading is way off base.  I brought my observation of confirmation bias creeping into the discussion.  I simply prefer evidence over independent  self serving statements.   

     

    Accusations of CB and actually demonstrating it are two very different animals. 

    • Thanks 1
  5. 18 minutes ago, mymistake said:

    Okay, I could be wrong.  Who gained politically by removing Harvey Weinstein and Roy Price?

     

    I don't know Roy Price, but Weinstein was low-hanging fruit and maybe part of the tit for tat since he was a big dem supporter. He was sure to get swept up in it. What I saw at the beginning were a bunch of democrats from the Pussy Hat movement hoping they could bring down Trump. Trump probably deserves whatever he gets but this appeared to have started in that way. 

    • Thanks 1
  6. 26 minutes ago, mymistake said:

    Originally the Metoo movement was about getting abusers out of power.  That is still a nobel goal.  

     

    I don't buy it. (no offense to you MM, I'm referring to the movement, not you or your opinion) It's just been a witch hunt and a tit for tat against political enemies. 90% of those in the movement will vote for Creepy Joe if he is the DNC nominee. 

    If there are real abusers, give them their day in court. This is just vigilantism. 

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  7. This isn't serious. 

     

    When I was younger and much better looking than I am now, I had done to me regularly what would be considered off limits if it occurred to women today. I found it flattering as I'm sure sane women do. It's wrong to hold someone's job over there head for sexual favors. We all know this and there are laws against it. But nothing wrong with allowing people to be human and interact like humans without getting all uptight about it. That some do now is a societal sickness. It's not healthy and it's probably just one more tactic the elite uses to keep society divided in Hegelian fashion. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  8. 6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

    It makes sense to me. Christian's are generally liars, cheats and everything else who cling to christianity as some type of crutch. Many of them think of themselves as "sinners" and like the idea of their repeated "sins" being forgiven. And then do them again and again. This all seems to describe a lot of christians I've grown up with and known. Including many clergy. Make's sense that they rank high among among marital infidelity. 

     

    In business, if I see anyone using christianity in their business name, or being loud and outspoken about it in a sales transaction, immediate reg flag. 

     

    I agree with the line I highlighted. It falls in line with "Methinks the lady doth protest too much". But in my experience with the religious I grew up with, I didn't run into a lot of dishonesty. I guess we've had very different experiences. If I were broad brushing them, I'd call them gullible, but not dishonest. Not as a rule. 

    • Like 1
  9. I like a good jab at religion as much as the next guy, but c'mon! LOL

     

    "In comparison, only eight per cent of married adulterers claimed they are atheist or agnostic."

     

    IOW, it breaks down roughly the same way believers vs non believers breaks down in society. So, we can gather from this that "some people cheat". It doesn't matter if they are religious or not. 

  10. 40 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

     

     

    Another thing to consider is the lack of scientific education that formed some of these base beliefs and root moralities. If homosexual intercourse was being practiced without issue and then there was a period of famine, a series of coincidences could lend to a belief that "god is frowning upon ____." Think about the rain dances to please the gods, worship of the sun, etc. This lack of access to knowledge we have now can cause some straaaange (to us) rituals and belief systems.

     

    Education seems to be creating some pretty strange belief systems nowadays too. 27 pronouns? 

    • Thanks 1
  11. 11 hours ago, ag_NO_stic said:

     

    Hopefully this point does not come across as sarcasm or being a jerk. I guess I just don't see many elephants dressing up in their Sunday best for elephant church to worship an elephant savior. Or dressing in in little elephant suits and going to their little elephant justice system and standing in front of an elephant judge to determine if an elephant criminal will go elephant prison. Or elephants inventing televisions and then marketing to other elephants for capitalistic gain or whatever. If we're super advanced and I'm just stupid, I can accept that. I am referring to the sentience that seems to mark so much of our social behavior as opposed to just instinct. I really am ignorant about evolution, for the record, I'm not trying to be an asshole.

     

    I am following what you're saying for the record. In all seriousness, for all I know elephants (and other animals for that matter) have their own social behaviors that make no sense to us since we're not in that social group. Our social behaviors don't really affect other animals that much, they have their own systems.

     

    Humans have the highest developed mental capacity, for sure, and as I mentioned, this is reflected by the fact that we have more complex rituals and rules as well. Other animals are better adapted to their environments than we are in different ways. What I'm trying to stress here is that just because we have a more developed intellectual capacity does not mean that we are necessarily designed or that we are very special, except for perhaps just in our own eyes. It just means we developed a different survival mechanism than, say bears or sharks have. We branched out in a different direction. Time will tell if that's a long term advantage or disadvantage. Right now, it's looking like a big disadvantage. Sharks have been around for millions of years in virtually the same form. Humans have been around for a few hundred thousand and we're already at risk of destroying our eco system, and as such, ourselves. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  12. 1 hour ago, ag_NO_stic said:

     

    I think what confuses me most about your argument, though I still find it compelling, is that the latent apologist in me (though I am slowly suffocating it) wants to question why humans seem so different than other mammals. I've been trained from birth to not accept evolution as an acceptable answer for this even though the better part of me is happy to accept that evolution explains it even if I don't understand it. I just don't see why there seems to be a deep "moral" objection in me as opposed to "acceptance of the rules as part of the society." Does this make sense? I completely agree with your summary of Kant's argument though, that makes sense. My extremely limited understanding of atoms and how we've evolved and how life came to be does not satisfactorily explain our sentience in the pool of seemingly non-sentient animals. 

     

     

    I'll have to check this out! I like shows like that.

     

    I am a bit confused. I'm not so sure humans are all that different from other animals. Different species of animals behave in different ways. We are a different species. We share many characteristics and then have many that are also unique, just like virtually all other species so our differences make us the same if that makes sense. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. 

    Anyway, it stands to reason that with a more highly developed intellectual ability would come more complex rules and rituals. I personally think Rousseau is the one that best nailed human morality. We're social creatures and we develop a common system of rules within our groups. This doesn't mean the rules are arbitrary or without intrinsic value. Very much the opposite. 

  13. The author you refer to in the OP seems incredibly obtuse. You don't need a book to tell you that harm (such as rape) is wrong. Morality doesn't need a higher authority. We make choices if we choose to live as a society and no society can survive if there aren't rules against harming members of society. 

     

    There is a vast body of work on this in the field of philosophy that doesn't rely on anything but basic logic to support concepts of morality. Rousseau argued that morality is based on the general will of society (or that which members generally agree upon, whether subconsciously or overtly). Kant essentially argued that no one would want to live in a world based on theft, murder, etc...  Locke argued that humans are basically decent and that we naturally don't want to live in a society where it's ok to steal my neighbor's chickens and rape his daughters simply because we don't want the neighbor to return the favor. 

     

    If you're looking for moral absolutes, then, yeah, you'll need a religious voice of authority. But moral absolutes are kind of stupid and end up leading to great atrocities. The concept of morality, however, is not that complex and humans arrive at it in the same way we learn not to stick forks in wall sockets.  

     

    BTW, evolution isn't merely survival of the fittest. There are large numbers of observations in nature where animals cooperate in order to survive. Cooperation is key to morality. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  14. 2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

     

    Thanks. 

     

    These circumstances are bizarre, to say the least. Does anyone know Mark's last name? Can we find an obituary? 

     

     

     

    It probably wouldn't be that hard to figure it out. His last post was somewhere around the last couple of days in November and we know his accident was at the end of November, so you could probably google his first name plus car accident along with the date. 

     

  15. 3 hours ago, Cousin Ricky said:

     

    In light of Mark’s final letter, perhaps the cosmos will someday have a new perspective on itself from his atoms.

     

    That's a nice sentiment. My grandfather, who was also an atheist, was similar to Mark in that he too was a self-taught scientist. He taught himself quantum mechanics, among other things. After my grandmother died, he liked to wax on about the fact that energy never disappears, just changes form. 

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
  16. 4 hours ago, SeaJay said:

    Thanks for posting Josh. 

     

    Who is BAA?

     

    He's a long-time member whom we all just learned passed away. 

     

    If you're still worried about things like the holy spirit, it seems to me you would benefit from reading books on logic and science. From what I've read of your posts, it seems you are trying to convince yourself that you're right by focusing on the bible and reading/listening to those who debunk the bible. The bible is a big book of rabbit holes. It's so easy to keep going down trails and getting yourself lost. If you had a stronger logical foundation and understood observable reality better you'd see that the bible is really a silly little book, no more credible than a children's book that tells the story of Santa, and you'd laugh at yourself for ever taking it seriously. 

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
  17. 2 hours ago, Thurisaz said:

    What has Russia done lately

     

    Oh, just advance 3-4 generations ahead of the US in terms of anti missile tech and rocket tech. 

     

    Dude seems to think the world is a football game and he's rooting for the patriots. Winning doesn't mean being the richest, most powerful, able to tell the rest of the world what to do. Winning simply means being safe from outside influence and creating a nurturing, healthy environment where kids can be raised to get a good education and contribute to the next generation. Sadly, America is failing badly here. Kids in Baltimore can't even get heat in their schools now while the government spends its money on jails and weapons. 

  18. 4 hours ago, duderonomy said:

     

    There is no Cold War II, and now that Trump has redirected NASA towards space instead of Muslim outreach, the U.S. will win as it always does.

    I know that must rankle your Islam loving Russia loving soul, Mr. I Was Born In The States! but it's true. Yes, the Soviets were the first ones in space, but where is their interstellar craft still flying? I suppose it's true that the Germans invented the first automobile too, but it took Henry Ford to make it available and affordable. How many Russian or Islamic cars pass you everyday on the freeway?

    I'm sure Putin is doing everything he can to remove Western influence. I hope you enjoy your new dark age. If all it takes is a few sanctions, a little isolation, a bit of undermining, and the evil Saudis manipulating oil prices (because Mother Russia has no reserves of its own that it knew how to use) to weaken the Almighty Russia, then they don't have as much on the ball as you think they do.

     

    To whomever is the mod here, I'm sorry to get political, but I couldn't let this one go. I'd rather this sub-forum was just about science. 

     

    LOL

     

    I'll let most of this go as it's all quite silly. I have to mention though that it's Russia that puts US astronauts in space these days as NASA's space shuttle program is kaput. Also, the US lost its capability of building rocket engines. When the US realized that congressional sanctions barred them from buying Russian rocket engines, they did a quick 180 and made those exempt, otherwise US satellites would have been dead in the water.

     

    Ok, wallow away. 

  19. 13 minutes ago, Thurisaz said:

    Problem is, as long as the ISA (think they) are the only superpower on this planet their 1 % don't have much reason to think about the rest of the world, other than whom to bomb next (not entirely sarcastic, sadly).

     

    That's changing. The US hasn't won a war in any of our lifetimes. But more recently, they've had their plans thwarted too. Syria was a glaring defeat in that it didn't end up a giant terrorist training camp like Libya. This was significant as it means they aren't the only ones calling the shots anymore. The same is true of sanctions. They told Germany and the rest of Europe not to buy Russian gas. Germany basically told them to fuck off and the UK, the biggest supporter of the US just bought a whole load of LNG from Moscow. China is building a new trade system that challenges the US empire rules and trade routes. Obama tried to put up roadblocks by forcing US partners to adopt TPP and TTIP, but these were failing efforts and the guys backing Trump saw them as such so had him scrap it all. The US is still trying to put up road blocks (why else are we still in Afghanistan of all places?), but these too are bound to fail. And, the big one is, China and Russia are challenging the Petrodollar. Without that, US funding for all this international politicking/war dries up. 

     

    This leaves the US with two basic choices. Accept the inevitable and return to a more isolationist position or try and blow up the whole thing and go back to reset meaning starting WWIII. There are crazies running things in the US that no doubt see the later as the only solution, but I'm betting the laws of physics prevail and others both inside the US and outside that have influence will see that everyone dead doesn't get them what they want. IMO, the only inevitable future is multipolarity where the US plays a smaller role than it has for the past 60 years. The McCains will die off and people at home and abroad will be better off for it. 

  20. 2 minutes ago, florduh said:

    Tell that to our government.

     

    Well, fortunately, they aren't in charge of the world even though they'd like to be. They are losing influence as we speak and multipolarism is inevitable. No doubt they will try and start more wars to stave it off. Let's hope they aren't successful for the sake of humanity. 

  21. 14 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

    Not really.  The main reason science hasn't eradicated most diseases is because there's no profit to be made once an illness has a cure.  It's rather simple; and far from excellent.

     

    I think there is probably a lot of that going on. It seems a lot of it is just no motivation to dump the money into finding cures as opposed to intentionally keeping therapeutic lines of revenue running. It seems a lot of scientists around the globe would love to be working on cures for various illnesses, but just don't have the funding unless they work for big pharma. I have an acquaintance in Moscow who works as a research scientist for Amgen. They focus his work on development of therapy (drugs). In his case, for cholesterol reduction with an eye on profitability. Maybe if that weren't the goal, he'd be working on bigger picture cures instead of just treatment of symptoms. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.