You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Sexual Harrassment
March 28 2024 9.02pm

Sexual Harrassment

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 29 of 32 < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 >

 

jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 07 Dec 17 4.11pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays


All written by you on a computer.

'Science has 'proven' stuff and then found out that is was wrong.....guess what found it to be wrong? S C I E N C E.

Mill had no access to the modern day research we have had from science on the biological differences between the sexes......it is standard and accepted in the field that men and women are biologically different and that results in behavioural differences....they aren't contested.

Please point out to me that areas in biological study where there is doubt on behavioural differences.

Problem is that the same argument applies, in that biology isn't very good at reliably identifying that the differences in these behaviours are biologically determined; they're correlational.

Its the absurdity of the nature / nurture argument - Its unsolvable, because people have bought into a false scientific paradigm - which science has long moved on from. Its the relationship between nature and nurture that's important, not one or the other.

We are both socially and biologically constructed, the two are really inseparable. Attempts to prove one or the other, have always failed, because they've mistakenly embraced self fulfilling assumptional bias.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 07 Dec 17 4.13pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Mapletree

Ah, you mean James Damore, that well known scientist. Amazing how he hit on the differences so accurately when social scientists have been wrestling with them inconclusively since The Scottish Enlightenment. Not exactly a learned treatise taking into account all of the relevant research and theory available, now was it?

He cited uncontested research.

State what behaviours you think have unknown causes or the biological community are 'inconclusive' about concerning the differences between men and women.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 07 Dec 17 4.16pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Problem is that the same argument applies, in that biology isn't very good at reliably identifying that the differences in these behaviours are biologically determined; they're correlational.

Its the absurdity of the nature / nurture argument - Its unsolvable, because people have bought into a false scientific paradigm - which science has long moved on from. Its the relationship between nature and nurture that's important, not one or the other.

We are both socially and biologically constructed, the two are really inseparable. Attempts to prove one or the other, have always failed, because they've mistakenly embraced self fulfilling assumptional bias.

There is a consensus in the field that nature is 50 to 80 of behaviour....on intelligence at least.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 07 Dec 17 4.22pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Ray in Houston


You saw some YouTube videos that you can't now conjure but really, as you admit, you don't know. Classic.

Thanks! We now have a standard by which to judge all of the many facts you have expressed about which you seemed equally certain.

I don't have time to devote to dancing to your specific tune.

The democrats in Washington are bound by corporations but the wider base has gone very far to the progressive left.

That's my opinion.....this is an opinion forum.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 07 Dec 17 4.25pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by Ray in Houston


The gun lobby is so loud and well funded that it punches way above its weight in the political arena. That's the problem with money in politics - it's not "free speech" as the Supreme Court decided, it's a megaphone.

I think the sunset provisions included in any number of regulations is a procedural thing, as it reduces some of the hurdles a bill needs to clear in order to become law. This is why it tends to gets used more frequently in theoretically divisive legislation.

It's a fact of life politically, but it's just insane that American politics has become so regressive. We're rolling back abortion rights, gun restrictions, voting rights and the social safety net. The rest of the world is moving forwards and we're at best standing still.

Edited by Ray in Houston (07 Dec 2017 3.28pm)

That's why it's used for sure, but you'd be better off without them and getting the bill through as it should be rather than knowing the other side will let it expire.

As it was it only applied to new weapons anyway, existing stocks and second hand ones could still be bought and sold. No doubt the gun manufacturers simply over-produced prior to the ban, and knew in all likelihood that they'd be back in ten years. Having little effect on the sale of the consumables in the meantime.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 07 Dec 17 4.28pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays


All written by you on a computer.

'Science has 'proven' stuff and then found out that is was wrong.....guess what found it to be wrong and made corrections? S C I E N C E.

It happens when ideas are contested.....where is the contesting in this area from science?

Mill had no access to the modern day research we have had from science on the biological differences between the sexes......it is standard and accepted in the field that men and women are biologically different and that results in behavioural differences....they aren't contested.

Please point out to me that areas in biological study where there is doubt on behavioural differences.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Dec 2017 4.07pm)

That is precisely why I suggested you look at what was said by Kuhn. Scientific paradigms work for a while, then you find new ways to look at things that are nearer the mark.

There is doubt on everything. But I am sorry I don't have time to teach you verbatim, I am too busy doing the tango with others. I do suggest you read my links though.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 07 Dec 17 4.33pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

There is a consensus in the field that nature is 50 to 80 of behaviour....on intelligence at least.

It depends on what you mean by intelligence, but they're kind of right, I think intelligence is probably 80% biological, but its more because that 20% relates to biological dysfunction that effectively limits someone's intellectual capacity and ability.

You could also point to the fact, that without socialisation, humans would be primarily glorified apes (education and learning being social factors) - which is why we shouldn't really call it nature vs nurture.

Because the real value of intelligence isn't some biological quotient, its how you utilise and maximise that capacity. People aren't born geniuses, they're made through educational application and effort.

Which sums up a good point from critical social psychology on IQ studies - that scientists in order to prove intelligence is genetic, have divorced the idea of intelligence so far from the real world that they're measuring something that's utterly irrelivent, in order to prove they were right.

Granted, IQ has its place. But given that probably only 5% of people, at best, lie outside of positions of variance, it doesn't really tell you much of value about the other 95%. People with very high IQs don't always go onto remarkable things, where as some people with very average IQs change the world.

And of course IQ, is at least on of many different forms of intelligence. Someone can have low IQ and present exceptional ability (idiot savants), whilst sociopaths score high in IQ, but show very poor achievement educationally.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ray in Houston's Profile Ray in Houston Flag Houston 07 Dec 17 4.33pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

Originally posted by Stuk

That's why it's used for sure, but you'd be better off without them and getting the bill through as it should be rather than knowing the other side will let it expire.

As it was it only applied to new weapons anyway, existing stocks and second hand ones could still be bought and sold. No doubt the gun manufacturers simply over-produced prior to the ban, and knew in all likelihood that they'd be back in ten years. Having little effect on the sale of the consumables in the meantime.


I think the political calculation regarding sunset provisions is that it's better to get the law on the books with a sunset, than it is to have it not pass because of its permanence.

As regards gun sales, your point is very well made and born out b y the fact that suppliers sold out of bump stocks within days of the Las Vegas massacre. They needn't have panicked, the NRA has already abandoned its offer of banning bump stocks in favor of expanding the right to carry concealed weapons over state lines.

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 07 Dec 17 4.35pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

That is precisely why I suggested you look at what was said by Kuhn. Scientific paradigms work for a while, then you find new ways to look at things that are nearer the mark.

There is doubt on everything. But I am sorry I don't have time to teach you verbatim, I am too busy doing the tango with others. I do suggest you read my links though.

Scientific Paradims are fantastic, if you know what they are. Scientists tend to. Everyone else rarely even know what underlying assumptions and scientific paradims actually are.

And that's a problem. A study showing that 1% of people with a gene y perform better at x, gets translated in the news, that gene y makes you better at x.

It doesn't, there is only a correlation between x and y. Even in the sample, you'll find people without Y who perform better at X, than some people with Y.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ray in Houston's Profile Ray in Houston Flag Houston 07 Dec 17 4.39pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I don't have time to devote to dancing to your specific tune.

The democrats in Washington are bound by corporations but the wider base has gone very far to the progressive left.

That's my opinion.....this is an opinion forum.


I am thoroughly enjoying watching you descend through the levels of trollism.

You've now fallen from your high perch of self-proclaimed intellectual superiority to "that's my opinion". All it took was a simple ask of you to show where you get your "facts".

Keep watching those YouTube vids!

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 07 Dec 17 5.02pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Ray in Houston


I am thoroughly enjoying watching you descend through the levels of trollism.

You've now fallen from your high perch of self-proclaimed intellectual superiority to "that's my opinion". All it took was a simple ask of you to show where you get your "facts".

Keep watching those YouTube vids!

You admitted the heart of the democratic party is progressive and with Bernie Sanders and then you come out with this drivel.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ray in Houston's Profile Ray in Houston Flag Houston 07 Dec 17 5.11pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You admitted the heart of the democratic party is progressive and with Bernie Sanders and then you come out with this drivel.


I actually said the opposite of that. I said that if Bernie was the heart of the Democratic Party, he'd be President right now. I also corrected you on your misunderstanding that Bernie is even a Democrat (he isn't).

It's all a few posts up from here. Scroll up and take a look.

Once again, you're attacking fake news of your own creation.

Edited by Ray in Houston (07 Dec 2017 5.18pm)

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 29 of 32 < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Sexual Harrassment