![Reply](STYLES/Planetarion2/buttons/reply.gif) |
|
31 Aug 2007, 13:08
|
#51
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Theamion
Basically if you read them and you summarize them quickly (there are also newer articles on this) you would get this: 'Getting shitfaced in your youth has lasting effects in your later life, it can decrease your academical performance'
|
Without wishing to sound nihilistic, so what? The vast majority of people who get shit faced in their youth still seem to be able to pass exames, get jobs, raise families, etc. Sure, perhaps they would have got ever so slightly higher in some exam if they didn't drink alcohol, but then again, they might not.
|
|
|
1 Sep 2007, 00:12
|
#52
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Besides, a decrease in academic performance doe not necessarily result in a decrease in happiness.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
1 Sep 2007, 00:42
|
#53
|
Not Dark or Handsome
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cwmbru
Posts: 2,588
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fernando
If you do that you say, you will have british kids starting to drink in parks or other places, instead of pubs or whatever.
|
Haha. :)
__________________
"You can't drink a pint of Bovril."
|
|
|
1 Sep 2007, 01:52
|
#54
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Theamion
Oh and ross:
what kind of flawed logic are you trying to use?
|
I'm suggesting that its an extremely minor problem in the grand scheme of things, and one which doesnt justify increased state intervention. Moreover, even if state intervention were justified (which it isnt), raising the drinking age would not be the correct response since it fails to address the underlying causes of the problem, if there is indeed a problem. A more holistic approach would be to look at the specific reasons why young people choose to drink, and then try to decide (eg) whether the need to binge drink in order to feel comfortable around others is partially a result of certain social systems which act to produce emotional repression, and to what extent the effectiveness of peer pressure is increased by an education system which often promotes conformity, the need to fit in, and general moral weakness.
Secondly your posts, in as much as they relate to alcohol consumption in children, are not directly relevant to this thread since the issue here is whether the drinking age should be increased from 18 to 21, rather than from 14 to 18. (there is also a relevance issue in that most of your studies concern alcoholism and binge-drinking rather than alcohol consumption in general).
Last edited by Nodrog; 1 Sep 2007 at 02:11.
|
|
|
1 Sep 2007, 12:53
|
#55
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Theamion
Basically if you read them and you summarize them quickly (there are also newer articles on this) you would get this: 'Getting shitfaced in your youth has lasting effects in your later life, it can decrease your academical performance'.
|
Then surely the problem is getting shitfaced on a regular basis rather than the fact that ohmigod they might consume alcohol. The problem therefore is not the age at which alcohol is consumed, it's how people consume it. Which means that regulation of alcohol (which is generally pretty worthless anyway) by the state is pretty much a ****ing waste of time.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
2 Sep 2007, 02:01
|
#56
|
USS Oklahoma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
The consumption of alcohol of sufficient quantity at early ages while the brain is still in fromation, which just happens to be somewhere around 21 for most people, causes problems in the areas which are being formed. The areas which are being formed at these ages tend to be the areas covering impulse control and violence. Or so they say.
Do we think that there is a problem with too many people being overly impulsive and violent? If so, then maybe making it more difficult to get alcohol for persons in the at risk group makes some sense.
What do you think of guns? Though many of my countrymen would disagree, I believe that greater restrictions on the access to guns would result in a lessening of violence in the long run. I think it is the same principal. Things that lead to other unfortunate results should be discouraged even though they can't be stopped entirely and even though the effect on each individual is different.
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
|
|
|
2 Sep 2007, 17:25
|
#57
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
What we should do is make people take a lie detector test where they're asked if they realise binge-drinking can affect them badly later on in life. As long as they answer yes and don't lie they're free to drink!
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
6 Sep 2007, 15:12
|
#58
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
We all did it; and most of us turned out ok.
|
I didn't. (Underage drink I mean - not in huge quantities, anyway.) And my life turned out pretty shit tbh. So I'd say drink as much drink as you can get your hands on when you're young - it may make you a better person. Although my nan was giving me large amounts of barrel cider to drink on Sunday afternoons from about the age of seven so perhaps I followed a 'continental model' or some such thing, I don't know.
Anyway, go in for hard drinking. It's fun.
|
|
|
7 Sep 2007, 14:14
|
#59
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
horn, would you mind if I sent any of your posts at random into Pseuds Corner in Private Eye?
|
|
|
7 Sep 2007, 14:39
|
#60
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
if it's the same place you get the endless stream of sexual innuendo jokes i'm not sure it'd fit in too good. but then you're a pretty individual guy i guess so... shoot.
|
Well it just seems you're trying to ape Nodrog et al by using by metaphysical/philosophical words which either A) you don't really comprehend or B) make whatever you're saying completely indgestable. Now I'm no great fan of Nod but he always keeps his replies as simple as possible and only delves into jargon etc when it's absolutely neccessary. I can read Nod's stuff and gain the basic measure of it even if I don't fully grasp individual terms regarding certain subjects, which is understanble as I'm not as intelligent as Gordon and wouldn't pretend to be. A lot of what you're coming out with at the moment is just turdy in style and is flaunting 'big words' for the sake of it which I've already seen Dante comment on.
Also, bashing me for sexual innuendo is like bashing a horse for eating hay. If your main criticsm of me is based around the fact that I post pretty throaway stuff (which I believe I've admitted to and drawn attention to on regular intervals starting in about, oh, 2003) then that is a pretty shitty retort and betrays a fundamental lack of confidence in your position.
Also why the hell am I even replying like this because I wasn't that serious to begin with. Once again I am reminded that a lot of people here are too uptight about things and why I don't really like GD that much anymore.
To sum up: Go back to the horn I used to love, not whatever you are (or trying desperately to be) at the moment.
Last edited by Marilyn Manson; 7 Sep 2007 at 14:48.
|
|
|
7 Sep 2007, 15:44
|
#61
|
Registered Awesome Person
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
edit: i'm going out now and you've probably ruined my day
|
"Don't cry for me.....I'm already dead."
__________________
Finally free!
|
|
|
7 Sep 2007, 21:20
|
#62
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Oh horn
I may be in Twickenham tomorrow and now I have your number you can't escape me. Although I might be too scared to meet you*.
*without a thesaurus to hand
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
12 Sep 2007, 13:13
|
#63
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
horn, why did you call me a cowboy? I think it's because you think all gay people wear cowboy hats well you're a big big homophobe and i'm going to tell peter tatchell about you.
Quote:
why do you assume i can't comprehend the words i'm using?
|
A lot of what you write at the moment is (to me) reasonably disjointed which would imply that you're not overly confident with the actual terms you're deploying. Although mabye I am just a bit daft.
|
|
|
12 Sep 2007, 16:10
|
#64
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Which is ironic because immigrants have a lack of confidence in gays.
|
|
|
12 Sep 2007, 16:29
|
#65
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
If I am ever publicly executed then I wish to go the way Saint Sebastian did; fatally penetrated and repeatedly violated.
|
|
|
12 Sep 2007, 16:41
|
#66
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
By arrows.
P.S. Which, by the way, wasn't what he died of.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
12 Sep 2007, 16:44
|
#67
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
By arrows.
|
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
P.S. Which, by the way, wasn't what he died of.
|
Never let the truth dominate a more romantic lie.
|
|
|
12 Sep 2007, 16:51
|
#68
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
I quote: "he commanded him to be led to the field and there to be bounden to a stake for to be shot at. And the archers shot at him till he was as full of arrows as an urchin is full of pricks."
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
12 Sep 2007, 16:53
|
#69
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
I quote: "he commanded him to be led to the field and there to be bounden to a stake for to be shot at. And the archers shot at him till he was as full of arrows as an urchin is full of pricks."
|
I am unconfident as to what to make of this post so I shall wait, pending more information.
|
|
|
12 Sep 2007, 18:49
|
#70
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
an urchin is full of pricks."
|
Pun1: Just like GD!
Pun2: Just like MM's nights out!
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
13 Sep 2007, 11:34
|
#71
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
"I know the different between a caucus and a cactus. With a cactus, the pricks are on the outside."
|
|
|
13 Sep 2007, 18:33
|
#72
|
I ♡ ☠
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 834
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
you're right, you aren't the first to say you have a problem with me concerning it but unless it gets so bad i'm pretty much forced out of the community i'm basically going to carry on. i don't think i'm doing anything wrong and i think less of you for suggesting i am. (seriously)
|
to be honest, at first i thought you were just using such words to move into nodrog's meme of involving philosophy wherever possible, mainly because i don't follow a lot of the stuff to which you're referring and assume if i don't know it you probably don't either, as shitty as that is. in summation, carry on camping, or just posting as you are now, whichever.
|
|
|
13 Sep 2007, 22:36
|
#73
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
there's a pretty big distinction to be made here. if you mean involving esoteric philosophical terms wherever possible in order to throw your "opponent" ofcourse, then yeah, it's a bit gay. but trying to involve philosophy in the sense that you're simply analysing beliefs/ideas at the most fundamental level... well that's aces.
|
Every non-trivial post involves philosophy on some level - it's more an issue of how self-conscious someone is when doing it. People can have a discussion about form and substance without necessarily mentioning those terms explicitly or referencing any philosopher who has discussed the topic*.
Jargon as short-hand is inevitable (and useful) but sometimes terms get in the way of discussion - especially if posts are generally in a conversational style (as here). Your mileage will vary but I personally try to avoid using certain words altogether in informal discussion. If I'm writing a sentence which relies on the term "ontological" then that probably means I've got a paragraph which could do with rewriting.
* - I have some sympathy for name-dropping if it's done to avoid plagarism. I've got an annoying habit IRL of prefixing the source to anything I quote, e.g. "as Woody Allen once said...". It makes me seem like even more of an arse, but I'd prefer that to not correctly attributing material.
|
|
|
15 Sep 2007, 11:05
|
#74
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
you're right, you aren't the first to say you have a problem with me concerning it but unless it gets so bad i'm pretty much forced out of the community i'm basically going to carry on. (seriously)
|
In Anticipation of a Happier Time
The sun dawns brighter
The blessed day has arrived
Horn has left GD
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
16 Sep 2007, 12:01
|
#75
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
dace?
bold?
underlined?
funny?
x0r?
this last month has seen some pretty progressive posting on your part dace. i wouldn't say this is your very best work but it's certainly up there. i don't know what you're doing but keep going. one day you might even be able to engage in the debate.
|
One day you'll realise that, for the most part, there's very little point in taking part in "online discussions".
In this instance "The UK drinking culture and how it can be tackled".
Now "the med drinking culture" has been mentioned. The legal age has been discussed (how it varies between places, what the impact is). Blah, blah, blah. Genetic disposition to alcoholisim has not been talked about (maybe that's why the Brits get so badly boozed up). The impact of the weather, social facilities, social deprivation. All of those i'm pretty sure haven't been talked about.
Now more importantly there has been no referencing of studies (plural ... a massive ONE study has been mentioned in the thread ... mentioning one study is pretty pointless though as you need a weight of evidence to "prove" anything). Without "hard facts" all this debating is pure bullshit. It's wanky indulgence. Wanky indulgence you seem to be taking very seriously.
It's not that i don't have an opinion. It's not that i can't "back up" my opinion with what i feel and make it sound reasonable. It's just that making uneducated statements, which everybody else seems to be making, about something i know very little about is worse than making sniping jokey posts which try to highlight the faggotry of someone like you horn. Far worse.
Now discussions on matters of opinion, like "What makes something art", those i can understand. I might take part in those. Science discussions where i don't know the science those i avoid. Those everybody should avoid.
You say i don't engage in the debate. I say that you contribute less by not taking a reasoned view and BACKING THE ****ER UP with scientific evidence. The fact that your debating skills are piss poor coupled with your eagerness to use big words you don't properly understand is what makes you such a wanker. It's why i want you to **** off. I would however much prefer it if you got a clue and argued properly. It's just i think the chances of you doing that are very remote.
In conclusion horn - i'm better than you.
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
16 Sep 2007, 12:20
|
#76
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
I appreciate that this might take away somewhat from the impact of my previous post but in the "things which haven't been discussed but should have been" section i forgot:
- The abolition of the "public need" law (i can't remember the exact name of it) which means that pubs have proliferated in town and city centres.
- The price of alcohol i.e. it's cheaper now that it was decades ago (due to lower taxes and supermarkets using it as a loss leader)
- The family environment i.e. the number of single parent families, the number of families in which both parents work, the number of families where there is little or no support from grandparents (a possible impact of increased mobility within the UK)
- The school environment
- The impact of religion and the UK's increasing atheism
- The widening gap between the haves and have nots i.e. the richer are now richer compared to "normal people'.
Now all of these increase social unrest which, i suspect (suspect because i have no data to hand ... social unrest would also need to be investigated), increase substance abuse. All these would need to be investigated. Comparisons would need to be drawn with other countries. Investigations into other types of "abuse" (hard drugs, shit food, physical assault etc) would also need to be looked at. Drinking is just one symptom of the disease. Thinking that by raising the drinking age you're going to solve the problem is ****ing lunacy.
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
16 Sep 2007, 12:31
|
#77
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
I could probably make a well informed post about how Dace is a faggot now he has a girlfriend using scientific studies and evidence to back up my claims.
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
16 Sep 2007, 12:46
|
#78
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
16 Sep 2007, 17:00
|
#79
|
break it down!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,087
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue
Words like ontological and epistemology are only good for ironic one liners.
|
But I thought that Dr Who was an ontological paradox?
__________________
I put the sex in dyslexia!
|
|
|
17 Sep 2007, 11:14
|
#80
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dace
...
|
There was an excellent thread which I was vieweing a while back which was full of anti-Sunday verse. ****ed if I can find it now.
|
|
|
17 Sep 2007, 11:15
|
#81
|
Registered Awesome Person
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson
There was an excellent thread which I was vieweing a while back which was full of anti-Sunday verse. ****ed if I can find it now.
|
Come on Manson, get your shit togther.
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=156255
__________________
Finally free!
|
|
|
17 Sep 2007, 11:24
|
#82
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Ah. There's the problem. I was searching for 'Jakiri you Faggot.' :/ I knew it was something along those lines.
|
|
|
17 Sep 2007, 19:04
|
#83
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by idimmu
you really think that indoctrinating in to christianity for a 2 year period is worse than then developing a heart condition for the rest of your life?
|
I don't think he was suggesting it was - he was suggesting activities which would increase the risk of ill-health, not guarantee it. But if the choice was between my child having a heart condition (which, for arguments sake was managable through medication) and them never achieving enlightenment, I'd pick the former.
|
|
|
20 Sep 2007, 12:53
|
#84
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
given that no one lists scientific studies when having everyday face to face discussions, even when they may involve making such outlandish scientific claims as "people need oxygen to breathe", where exactly do you have these discussions dace?
ah. ah, yes. yes it looks like we missed those.
maybe if you had tried to make a post that added to the discussion you would realise why. it's because the discussion moved onto not how to tackle the problem, but why it was a problem in the first place.
it was probably something easy to miss given that you appear to have ignored the posts in the thread (because they didn't have enough studies listed?) and just reeled off a list of tabloid sub headings as a framework for someone else to make a point about something we aren't discussing. next time you try to critique my posts, try actually replying to them. hopefully then it will be more apparent whther or not what you (nearly) have to say is relevent or not.
hey maybe the reason these statements might come across to you as "uneducated" is because it's concerning something you know very little about?
YEAH!!
the thing is, dickhead, is that the kind of "scientific evidence" we're talking about here isn't the kind of scientific evidence that has a clear break from opinion, or interpretation. so much so that the reason why it's so hard to come by studies concerning things like "atheism and alcoholism" is probably because any kind of "scientific" conclusions are going to be a bit of a joke.
there are studys that BACK THAT ****ER UP in relation to what i said about dualism and human perception/value. but if no one's questioning what i'm stating then what's the point in digging them up? (you dribbling "u dnt understand the words ur using. trust me ok i've been aruond a bit, can pm if needed" doesn't count)
there were some points i made that weren't supported by either general relativity or quantum theory though, like my experience with what the media write. yet i thought they were still correct and still worth making. i too sometimes disagree with what some people think about the media. only the other day i heard someone call it "too liberal". luckily i can now comfort myself in the knowledge that their opinions aren't worth listening too because they didn't back that ****er up with scientific studys
yeah. maybe i could roll up into the next thread i feel like "arguing properly" in and make some dire attempt at a..... um.... burn? then when told i'm not adding much i could just go all out. i mean i wouldn't actually try and reply to the posts i need to reply to. i'd just say things like "this discussion is dumb and unscientific. here is a list of the aspects of discussion i think should be covered because they have empirically quantifiable "scientific" answers. can't find any studys atm so i won't be arguing for or against them, but if you want to move forward this is def the way to go. ok cya", then i'd leave until the next time i decided to drop my covert but undoubtably weighty intellectual bombs on some unsuspecting poster. maybe with a few funnys too.
while i appreciate the scientific approach dace, i can't help but think you're an un interesting, unclever, unfunny, unkind wanker who is in no way better than me.
|
All that discussion with peers tends to do is homogenise views and opinions. That discussion can take place in the real world or online. In either case unless you have the ability to "back it up" the conversation is essentially worthless (from an intellectual point of view). All that you are doing is re-inforcing the group beliefs / stereotypes. If you are genuinely interested in a specific subject i would suggest reading widely on the topic (and tabloid media doesn't "count" ... due to their inherent biases and poor reporting practices). Getting poorly informed information from peers is a bad, bad way to go. If you want to debate a subject then you do need to provide references. If you want to continue back-slapping then, sure, carry on having pointless, wanky self-indulgent conversations.
Personally, on the occassions i do have "serious discussion" with friends down at the pub, or wherever, then i do reference my material as best as i can. "I read such and such an article at such and such a time" or "The IPCC has recently said X ... go and read the report". Obviously i dont carry a list of the articles with me on the off chance i start talking about it. You don't have that excuse online. Online you have a wealth of information available. There are also no time pressures. This means you can take the time required to prepare a proper response.
Also, all the points i raised were, contrary to your opinion, "why alcoholism is a problem". I'm unsure why you seem unable to comprehend that. I'd also question whether the topics i raised have ever been tabloid sub-headings. Ever. It has been my experience that tabloids tend to go for the highly emotive angle. In this case something along the lines of "Cop tries to tell US what's good for us (and by jove what right does he have to do that if he can't even round up all those blacks who are shooting people and shooting up)".
I would also like to point out that you appear to have very little clue about the scientific method. Have you had scientific training at a high level? I ask that not as a burn but genuinely. You say that any links found between atheism and alcoholism will be nothing more than a joke. I would argue that positive mental health comes from being "part of the group". Now that group can come from your family, your school, your job or your local "Church". The routes of investigation i suggested included all of those. Now if you have a large enough sample population you CAN infer the impact of atheism on alcoholism. At the most basic level if you have 2000 people who come from the exact same family background (size, social level etc) who went to similar standards of school and who all work in similar jobs but half go to church and half dont and 30% of those half who dont end up alcoholics then, if the stats says "yes", you can say "Atheism is linked to alcoholism". Proper scientific research IS free from opinion. I just don't understand how you can think otherwise. (Back to burn) More than anything it is your belief that proper science can be manipulated that makes me think you're a moron (and by proper science i mean peer reviewed, journal published reports. I'm not talking about the soundbites you get from politicians about the data. THAT can, and mostly is, spin.).
Now horn i have not really replied to specific posts in this thread because it is the thread in general, or rather the standard of debate within it, that i'm arguing against. I've targetted you, and your posts, specifically because you are the most ignorant person here who thinks he actually has a clue. You don't have a clue. I really desperately want you to realise this. Now the likes of Nod / Dante / T&F i've said nothing to or about them because i am confident that they know what's what. The impression i get is that when they talk here, even on "intellectual matters' it's some sort of pub conversation. They're just exhanging ideas. I also have confidence that they wouldn't blindly just believe anything somebody told them. They'd go and research the stuff themself. You though, you've got a MASSIVE hardon for this shit. STOP IT! Or, if as i've said already, you stay please get a clue and argue correctly.
So in conclusion horn either;
- Stay but stop arguing so heatedly
- Stay, continue to argue heatedly but argue in a "proper" fashion
- **** off
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
20 Sep 2007, 12:56
|
#85
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
while i appreciate the scientific approach dace, i can't help but think you're an un interesting, unclever, unfunny, unkind wanker who is in no way better than me.
|
uninteresting - disagree
unclever - disagree
unfunny - disagree
unkind - i'd like to think of msyelf as blunt but whatever
no way better than you - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
20 Sep 2007, 19:41
|
#86
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dace
I would also like to point out that you appear to have very little clue about the scientific method. Have you had scientific training at a high level? I ask that not as a burn but genuinely. You say that any links found between atheism and alcoholism will be nothing more than a joke. I would argue that positive mental health comes from being "part of the group". Now that group can come from your family, your school, your job or your local "Church". The routes of investigation i suggested included all of those. Now if you have a large enough sample population you CAN infer the impact of atheism on alcoholism. At the most basic level if you have 2000 people who come from the exact same family background (size, social level etc) who went to similar standards of school and who all work in similar jobs but half go to church and half dont and 30% of those half who dont end up alcoholics then, if the stats says "yes", you can say "Atheism is linked to alcoholism". Proper scientific research IS free from opinion.
|
I think empiricism is often a bad idea when it comes to analysing wider social issues because there are far too many factors to isolate in order to make a properly controlled study. Positivist sociology can be a bit of a joke since in order to get a study published, something needs to be demonstrated fairly conclusively, and as a result the study is often simplified to the point where the results are barely meaningful since they exhibit local correlations without being able to fit things into a wider picture. Most interesting social theories are fairly speculative imo rather than being entirely empirical, since thats the only way you can generally go beyond the extremely limited amount of data which strictly positivist methods are capable of providing; theres not really that much you can extrapolate from (eg) handing out polls to people under the age of 18 and trying to correlate teenage alcoholism to whether a person remembers having negative feelings towards their parents as a child or whatever. Social sciences arent like physics; you cant control variables in sociology or economics the way you can in a laboratory, so a less empirical methodology is often necessary imo.
How would you design a study which gives evidence for or against the hypothesis that increased teenage drinking is a symptom of the lack of externally imposed meaning which is widely present in 21st society, and/or that this is linked to the political/economic system in some important way (probably mediated by school education)?
Quote:
if you have 2000 people who come from the exact same family background (size, social level etc) who went to similar standards of school and who all work in similar jobs but half go to church and half dont and 30% of those half who dont end up alcoholics then, if the stats says "yes", you can say "Atheism is linked to alcoholism"
|
Yeah, thats the problem. Youve now done enough to get the study published somewhere, but have we really learned anything interesting? Is the link between atheism and alcoholism one of correlation, or causation? Does atheism lead to alcoholism, or does drinking lots of vodka make people turn away from God? Assuming the former, is there something intrinsic to lack of religious belief that makes a person turn towards alcohol, or is the problem really the failure of society to provide people with something other than outdated religious beliefs to provide their lives with a sense of meaning? Or is it the case that theres no direct correlation between alcoholism and atheism and they just happen to be symptoms of something deeper; perhaps technological progress necessarily leads to atheism as old religious beliefs are shown false, but new working conditions create a widespread sense of malaise which can lead to escapism manifested here through alcohol abuse? How do you decide between these interpretations without going far beyond the data available?
Last edited by Nodrog; 20 Sep 2007 at 20:09.
|
|
|
20 Sep 2007, 23:56
|
#87
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
PERSONAL DETAILS
Please enter your study personal reference number here: []
Please enter your post code here: []
Please enter your age here: []
FAMILY
HOME
Please mark the following boxes to best reflect the make up of your family home
Father []
Mother []
Step-father (married) []
Step-mother (married) []
Biological Father's partner []
Biological Mother's partner []
Elder brother (please enter number of elder brothers in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Elder sister (please enter number of elder sisters in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Younger brother (please enter number of younger brothers in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Younger sister (please enter number of younger sisters in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Father's Father []
Father's Mother []
Mother's Father []
Mother's Mother []
Other []
FAMILY CONTACT
Please mark down how regularly you have contact (in days) with:
Father []
Mother []
Step-father (married) []
Step-mother (married) []
Biological Father's partner []
Biological Mother's partner []
Elder brother (please enter number of elder brothers in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Elder sister (please enter number of elder sisters in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Younger brother (please enter number of younger brothers in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Younger sister (please enter number of younger sisters in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Father's Father []
Father's Mother []
Mother's Father []
Mother's Mother []
Other []
FAMILY LOCATION
Please mark down how far (in miles) the following members of your family live from you
Father []
Mother []
Step-father (married) []
Step-mother (married) []
Biological Father's partner []
Biological Mother's partner []
Elder brother (please enter number of elder brothers in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Elder sister (please enter number of elder sisters in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Younger brother (please enter number of younger brothers in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Younger sister (please enter number of younger sisters in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Father's Father []
Father's Mother []
Mother's Father []
Mother's Mother []
Other []
EDUCATION
Please enter the code of any school you attended
[ENTER SCHOOL CODE]
Have you been suspended at any time? If so how many times (please enter figure in the following box) []
have you been expelled at any time? If so please tick the following box []
[ENTER SCHOOL CODE]
Have you been suspended at any time? If so how many times (please enter figure in the following box) []
have you been expelled at any time? If so please tick the following box []
[ENTER SCHOOL CODE]
Have you been suspended at any time? If so how many times (please enter figure in the following box) []
have you been expelled at any time? If so please tick the following box []
[ENTER SCHOOL CODE]
Have you been suspended at any time? If so how many times (please enter figure in the following box) []
have you been expelled at any time? If so please tick the following box []
[ENTER SCHOOL CODE]
Have you been suspended at any time? If so how many times (please enter figure in the following box) []
have you been expelled at any time? If so please tick the following box []
RELIGION
Do you regularly attend a religious ceremony?
YES [] NO []
If YES please mark how often:
Once a day []
Once a week []
Once a month []
Two - Three times a year []
Once a year []
If YES do you attend the religious ceremonies with any of the following:
Father []
Mother []
Step-father (married) []
Step-mother (married) []
Biological Father's partner []
Biological Mother's partner []
Elder brother (please enter number of elder brothers in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Elder sister (please enter number of elder sisters in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Younger brother (please enter number of younger brothers in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Younger sister (please enter number of younger sisters in box and age difference to you in the brackets) [] ()
Father's Father []
Father's Mother []
Mother's Father []
Mother's Mother []
Other []
Note 1:
For family make-up i couldn't be bothered going through all possibly combinations of Aunts, Uncles, Cousins, Nephews and Nieces but they would be there.
Note 2:
For education there would be a seperate alphabetisised list of all the schools in the country wil a relevent code beside them
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
21 Sep 2007, 00:09
|
#88
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
****KKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just deleted a massive post by mistake.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!!
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
21 Sep 2007, 00:30
|
#89
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
The (second) above post is an example of the questions that would be asked of the participants in the study. The questionnaire would be written in such a way that it could be interpreted via computer program. The questionnaire would cover all details of the aspects I believe most important in a child’s upbringing / social environment (i.e. family, school and religious faith).
The participants would be recruited via Doctors surgeries aged 4 (possibly 2). Recruitment would be done at an age when all children go to the doctors (so as to avoid “sick kid” / protective parent bias)
The participants would have to complete questionnaires aged (possibly 2) 4 (i.e. just before school), 11 (i.e. just before high school) and 16/18.
The participant’s Guardian would complete the questionnaire on behalf of the participant aged (2) 4 and 11. The Guardian would also complete a questionnaire relating to themselves. The Guardian’s questionnaire would ask questions of a “health type nature” i.e. number of units of alcohol consumed a week (I know people lie but still … another study could be done to assess the extent of lying when questioned on subjects like this), amount of fruit/veg consumed per week, annual income.
The participant would undergo an "intelligence test" aged 4 and 11. Not a mensa IQ test but whatever the test the Government (NGOs?) use to assess whether education is improving or that the tests are getting easier.
The participant would complete their own questionnaire aged 16/18. That questionnaire would ask questions about substance (including alcohol) abuse, sexual practices and criminal activity. It would also ask about academic achievement and whether the person intended on going to University.
The participants would be paid for taking part in the study (potential bias could be caused by this i.e. poor people being over-represented).
Payment would be via one of two methods:
1) Payment into the children’s saving fund (that Government funded project thing)
2) Gift voucher card for a range of high street stores
Along with the gift voucher a leaflet would be provided detailing (via green, orange and yellow colour codes) the most beneficial aids for their children’s development that could be purchased from the available shops. Another leaflet would also note the disruptive effect of some other purchases.
Data detailing the purchases from the gift vouchers would then be fed into the database.
(It’s my idea that this data would show, in a VERY loose way, how much parents cared for their kids)
First time youth offenders (aged 11-17) would be given the option of counseling and the participation in this study in place of a caution ( / other punishment).
“Criminal” participants in the study would also get asked the lifestyle questions (i.e. Alcohol units consumed per week etc)
This data could be used to look for correlations (e.g. number of times expelled = bad home = likely to commit offences).
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
21 Sep 2007, 00:36
|
#90
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
*ahem*
OK im not a demographer type scientist but hopefully i've covered most of the variables with my questions etc.
Other studies would need to be referenced (i.e. impact of older siblings etc). Also "IQ" can be accounted for in disruptive behaviour (i forgot to add about whether a person gets learning support help).
The post code data is necessary to figure out (roughly) social level (i.e. you can find out the average house price etc).
All the data is annonymised (i.e. through the use of Participant codes).
It's late. I've most likely missed stuff out. My main point though is i think that if the study is correctly set up you can cover all the variables by clever questioning. Critique at will nod.
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
21 Sep 2007, 00:43
|
#91
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
Yeah, thats the problem. Youve now done enough to get the study published somewhere, but have we really learned anything interesting? Is the link between atheism and alcoholism one of correlation, or causation? Does atheism lead to alcoholism, or does drinking lots of vodka make people turn away from God? Assuming the former, is there something intrinsic to lack of religious belief that makes a person turn towards alcohol, or is the problem really the failure of society to provide people with something other than outdated religious beliefs to provide their lives with a sense of meaning? Or is it the case that theres no direct correlation between alcoholism and atheism and they just happen to be symptoms of something deeper; perhaps technological progress necessarily leads to atheism as old religious beliefs are shown false, but new working conditions create a widespread sense of malaise which can lead to escapism manifested here through alcohol abuse? How do you decide between these interpretations without going far beyond the data available?
|
The example i gave horn was a very basic one. It was just meant to highlight the potential. Teasing out demographical type data is difficult. If the study was conducted over more than a decade, like i propose, you could hopefully figure out when people "turned away from God". If you know when they stopped going to church and when they started drinking you can say whether they are related (e.g. if people stop going to church then 3 years later they all start drinking heavily then that suggests that church going might be a good thing whereas if they start drinking heavily and then 3 years later they stop going to church then there's probably no link etc).
Also, and this is important, the data i would want to collect is not just in relation to alcohol abuse. It would relate to all "negative behaviour" (i.e. drink, drugs, unsafe sex etc).
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
21 Sep 2007, 02:18
|
#92
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
The participants would have to complete questionnaires aged (possibly 2) 4 (i.e. just before school), 11 (i.e. just before high school) and 16/18.
The participant’s Guardian would complete the questionnaire on behalf of the participant aged (2) 4 and 11. The Guardian would also complete a questionnaire relating to themselves. The Guardian’s questionnaire would ask questions of a “health type nature” i.e. number of units of alcohol consumed a week (I know people lie but still … another study could be done to assess the extent of lying when questioned on subjects like this), amount of fruit/veg consumed per week, annual income.
|
Parents who really didn't care about their kids though, the sort of people whose kids end up on local authority "at risk registers" wouldn't be willing (or able) to participate in this sort of study. I know this is just an example, but among the socially excluded (/poor) you've got a very real chance that either:
i) The guardian is functionally illiterate or has issues which would make it very difficult / unlikely they'd complete a study.
ii) The guardian will be tremendously suspicious of any sort of survey at all - let alone one coming from authority figures. They might be fearful of some immigration issue, or some benefit claim and no matter how many times you explain that you're not from the government they won't necessarily believe you.
iii) They simply won't co-operate, or if it's incentivised will co-operate in unhelpful ways - get someone else to fill out the form with meanignless answers or just say to the researcher what ever they think they want to hear.
Obviously that's one nitpick and I'm sure you can think of ways around it, but there's always problems with selection bias in these things, and to avoid that usually increases the cost of social research dramatically.
I come into contact with a lot of social statistics through work, and while it's not all worthless it is incredibly difficult to operate within the scientific hypothesis model for the reasons Nod mentions (plus lots of others). Usually even the people presenting data will admit how hilariously unreliable it is, but that's usually followed by "...but it's the best information we have".
If you have vast datasets at your disposal and you're willing to do enough regression analysis on the data (to try and establish relationships) then you can have some results, but they tend to be either banal/obvious or entirely unprovable and/or of limited worth. I also have a strong suspicion that data collected specifically for the purpose of research is usually less reliable than other datasets when it comes to social studies.
Having said that, no matter how poor the reliability of questionaires are in establishing something specifically - they are often still the best remaining option. The British Crime Survey is considered the most reliable indicator of crime in some quarters, yet primarily relies on phoning people up and asking them if they've experienced any crime lately...
|
|
|
21 Sep 2007, 11:29
|
#93
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
Parents who really didn't care about their kids though, the sort of people whose kids end up on local authority "at risk registers" wouldn't be willing (or able) to participate in this sort of study. I know this is just an example, but among the socially excluded (/poor) you've got a very real chance that either:
i) The guardian is functionally illiterate or has issues which would make it very difficult / unlikely they'd complete a study.
ii) The guardian will be tremendously suspicious of any sort of survey at all - let alone one coming from authority figures. They might be fearful of some immigration issue, or some benefit claim and no matter how many times you explain that you're not from the government they won't necessarily believe you.
iii) They simply won't co-operate, or if it's incentivised will co-operate in unhelpful ways - get someone else to fill out the form with meanignless answers or just say to the researcher what ever they think they want to hear.
Obviously that's one nitpick and I'm sure you can think of ways around it, but there's always problems with selection bias in these things, and to avoid that usually increases the cost of social research dramatically.
|
I'd originally planned for this study to be completed using a computer. As such re:
i) Option for blind Guardians could be used for the illiterate (i.e. it would read the question out and the person just hits enter / the big red button when they want to enter a box).
ii) That was always a worry. Im not sure how, other than being as reassuring as you can be, you'd get past this.
iii) Photo's of the participants (Guardian and child's pictures linked) in the study would be taken and the questionnaire would be completed "on-site". That means only the correct Guardian could complete the questionnaire.
The questionnaire would possibly be completed in either the Doctor's surgery or alternatively in an office (to show it's not to get information about specific people for "The Big Bad Government").
I appreciate that conducting this sort of research properly would be expensive. Personally i think 10million would probably do the job. Considering the Government doesnt mind pissing away 11billion on a ****ed up NHS IT system and that if this information is properly collected you would know how properly to direct resources i think it would be money well spent.
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
21 Sep 2007, 11:38
|
#94
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Further Thoughts
"The aim of this study is to identify factors in a child's upbringing which have a disruptive effect and to grade them according to their contributary effect towards disruptive social behaviour"
Disruptive social behaviour meaning substance (including alcohol) abuse, unsafe sexual practices and criminal activity.
The benefit of looking at "disruptive effects" is that Guardians who complete the questionnaire in a piss take fashion can be included in the disruptive effect rating.
In addition blood samples would be taken so that genetic testing can be completed at a latter date when genes which pre-dispose someone to risky behaviour / substance abuse etc have been flagged / identified.
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
21 Sep 2007, 12:45
|
#95
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dace
I'd originally planned for this study to be completed using a computer. As such re:
i) Option for blind Guardians could be used for the illiterate (i.e. it would read the question out and the person just hits enter / the big red button when they want to enter a box).
|
I still think you're underestimating the difficulties experienced by those trying to undertake social research among disadvantaged groups. When our arrears officers are interviewing people to find out what debts they have it's not unheard of people to come in drunk or smelling of crack or whatever. Sure, a tiny minority of people but disprortionately important in this sort of research.
To take another example - Do you know how many languages you're going to be getting your talking computer to read out in a GPs office in Hackney (or indeed anywhere these days)?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying technology can't be used to overcome problems like this, but you seem to be underestimating the difficulties involved. So we can't assume a photo can overcome identity issues when the government can't even stop people claiming benefit fraudulently (or so they tell us).
Quote:
Personally i think 10million would probably do the job.
|
Well the cost depends on the sample involved. If you're talking about everyone being covered then £10 million seems rather low for a government contract. Once a government project is over 3 mill you have to tender Europe wide which means you're probably spunking away money on consultants all the way through the process. Then you've got your recruitment of staff, commissioning of the it systems (which probably won't work based on the governments track record), consultation with everyone, translation costs, running costs, etc. And this is a longtitudinal study over a couple of decades I guess? Well, the census costs £250 million as a (albeit very different) one-off exercise.
And what would it tell us? I'd guess stuff like that children born into disadvantage will have significantly higher rates of poor economic outcomes, delinquency, unemployment, etc than the general population? That children born into stable, caring and secure environments are less likely to face mental health problems and substance abuse problems when compared to children who face chronic abuse or neglect. That your parents housing tenure is one of the strongest correlations to your eventual education and professional attainment with children born into (say) council housing increasingly falling behind the rest as they reach their teen years? And even within housing tenure groups - conditions like overcrowding, damp, poor insulation standards and so on have an impact on an individuals eventual health and well being.
And guess what...we know all that. Social policy problems like anti-social behaviour and social exclusion aren't like a philosophical problem like free-will where we're scratching our heads in the face of utter mystery. We broadly know why these problems occur, and we even know methods we could use to reduce the problems significantly. The issue is that the perceived costs (e.g. of spending a lot more on social services, education, etc) are too high for a lot of people.
This doesn't mean that there isn't room for relatively minor innovations which can reap comparitively large benefits (e.g. different style of teaching) but those sorts of things rely on small scale nimble research undertaken by small social policy actors or academics where they can still do things a bit different. At a national/state level everything has to meet so many criteria that large scale research (unless it's very standardised like the census) is dramatically less effective.
Last edited by Dante Hicks; 21 Sep 2007 at 12:52.
|
|
|
23 Sep 2007, 20:37
|
#96
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: Stupid police officers and the nonsensical comments they make
Quote:
Originally Posted by horn
this is complete rubbish. that getting "poorly informed information" is a bad way to go when trying to learn about something is tautological bollocks. ofcourse getting "poorly informed" information is a bad way to get informed about something. the point is that not everyone is poorly informed, and to suggest that people's critical faculties that enable them to differenciate between the poorly and the well informed should be (and end at) whether what they're listening to comes with a bibliography and reference to "scientific studys" is possibly the dumbest thing i've ever heard. not only do you appear to have completely disregarded the moral, or "opinion" aspects of these (and every) discussion simply because they may involve assumptions that have not got scientific studys to hand, but you have continued to neglect the fact that empirical data is not understanding in itself. it's concepts that act as the mental glue to link our past experiences and current interactions with the world (i.e. data) that gives meaning and understanding to the world around us. scientific studys can help us weed out faulty assumptions or missed guesses, but only to an extent. they are still pieces of data that need to be interpreted.
let me clear this up for you. you were listing reasons for why alcoholism exists. not reasons for why it's actually a problem (in the sense that it's a "bad" thing). the discussion i was a part of was concerned with the latter.
no, i haven't had scientific training at a high level.
i'm not saying these studys couldn't/can't follow the "scientific method". the problem is you suggesting that the conclusions you draw form these studies are scientifically proven. they aren't.
showing an action(drinking) occurred after another action(not going to church) doesn't mean you've overcome the problem of proving causation. you haven't actually answered what he asked. i'll ask you. what if these people are just depressed? they feel low and start to neglect their responsibilitys such as acheiving sales targets at work, going to church and taking the kids out on the weekend. as their mental "health" and life in general starts to deteriorate they start drinking. now you've got correlation between drinking and non church attendance (which you've decided to conflate with atheism), but have you got causation? was this guys reach for the bottle made after dropping sartre to the floor? probably not, dace.
ok. here's what you're now going to do to help ease your desperation and help me see what you're seeing. you're going to go up to one of the posts i made in reply to either nod or t&f (whichever one really set in stone for you why i'm pig ignorant and haven't a clue what i'm talking about), then you're going to click quote, reply to it and hopefully show me up for the clown you know i am.
ok. i'm getting a bit confused here, lets see if i've got this straight...
you're raging against the standard of debate in this thread. however, you've targetted me out in particular because i have a MASSIVE hardon for it. you won't reply to my specific posts however because you're making a general statement about the standard of debate in the thread?
that almost sounds like as fun a merry-go-round as
does.
|
If I had written this post I would ritually cut off my fingers.
__________________
hi
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:46.
| |