Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Political Science

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Raz
    replied
    Re: Political Science

    Originally posted by shiny! View Post
    Possible genetic link found for homosexuality:

    http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...genes-its-them

    ================

    A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1887219

    Science. 1991 Aug 30;253(5023):1034-7.
    A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men.
    LeVay S.
    Source

    Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, CA 92186.
    Abstract

    The anterior hypothalamus of the brain participates in the regulation of male-typical sexual behavior. The volumes of four cell groups in this region [interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH) 1, 2, 3, and 4] were measured in postmortem tissue from three subject groups: women, men who were presumed to be heterosexual, and homosexual men. No differences were found between the groups in the volumes of INAH 1, 2, or 4. As has been reported previously, INAH 3 was more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the women. It was also, however, more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the homosexual men. This finding indicates that INAH is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.
    I wouldn't believe anything Dr. LeVay "discovered" about biological evidence for Homosexuality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_LeVay

    ALSO: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/bulleti...r_rosario.html


    Leave a comment:


  • reggie
    replied
    Re: Political Science

    High level, but I think this is worth a view given the discussion in this thread....

    Leave a comment:


  • DSpencer
    replied
    Re: Political Science

    Originally posted by radon View Post
    That a zygote is somehow objectively better than any of the other millions of cells I shed every day is the height of human conceit.
    I agree with most of your comments in this thread, but this is a pretty nihilistic viewpoint. Surely if you value human life in general then there is a higher value in the cells that naturally turn into humans as opposed to those that fall onto the ground and turn to dust? Is there ever a point where the cells making up a living human are objectively better than those sloughed onto the ground?

    Do you value you all the cells in your body equally? Would you be indifferent to losing the 2.5 million red blood cells in a half pint of blood vs 2.5 million cells in your optic nerves (which is roughly all of them)?

    Leave a comment:


  • Prazak
    replied
    Re: Political Science

    Originally posted by Raz View Post
    Thank you, Woodsman. If I've ever offended you it wasn't my intention. And it isn't a requirement for my friendship that you or anyone else agree with me.
    I have great respect for almost everyone on
    iTulip and have learned more from the members here - some of them agnostic/atheist - than I've ever been able to contribute.

    My wife once told me that she didn't take too seriously the opinions of anyone under the age of thirty. I'm now in complete agreement with her.
    It was for a very good reason that the Founders insisted that no one could be a Senator before attaining the age of thirty years - and thirty-five for the President.
    Right your wife is, Mr. Raz.

    And echoing Woodman here. I may view the cosmos differently than you and come out in a different place on various human struggles. But I respect your point of view, and always take the time to read what you write. And I appreciate the charts you post here -- which is the heart of what this site about.

    One of the best things about iTulip is that it provides a kind of DMZ where people of many different opinions can exchange viewpoints on subjects from soup to nuts. How many such places exist in this polarized culture, where we wall ourselves off into self-ratifying communities of opinion and values (and increasingly, facts)? Let's not let it devolve into yet another forum of intolerant people banging past each other at their respective dogma, or to become another bubble in which only one point of view is recognized as legitimate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Raz
    replied
    Re: Political Science

    Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
    Read this again today and immediately thought of you, Raz. I must say, I admit to sometimes being put off by your POV too, but I've never been more put off than I was by how you were treated. It seems like a decidedly uncharacteristic moment here behind the iTulip paywall and I didn't like it at all. I don't recall seeing any rule or warning that the theistic viewpoint is not welcome here. FWIW, I think there's room enough here for theistic, atheistic, and pantheistic viewpoints informing our conversations. The way I see it, iTulip is "about" earning and keeping wealth and how to navigate the uncertain times ahead and it would be a poorer place if we have to tiptoe around some of the more contentious areas of debate. But I'm just a newbie 99%er, so what do I know?

    Still, it makes me wonder when I will set off the tripwire and go BOOM. Me, I'm a wobbly agnostic that leans more towards the "perennial theology" so I doubt it will be god-talk that gets me tossed. But it's never been clearer to me that every community has its orthodoxy and woe to us who run afoul of it. And damn if I don't always do.

    Between Heaven & Hell
    Thank you, Woodsman. If I've ever offended you it wasn't my intention. And it isn't a requirement for my friendship that you or anyone else agree with me.
    I have great respect for almost everyone on
    iTulip and have learned more from the members here - some of them agnostic/atheist - than I've ever been able to contribute.

    My wife once told me that she didn't take too seriously the opinions of anyone under the age of thirty. I'm now in complete agreement with her.
    It was for a very good reason that the Founders insisted that no one could be a Senator before attaining the age of thirty years - and thirty-five for the President.

    Leave a comment:


  • Raz
    replied
    Re: Political Science

    Originally posted by aaron View Post
    I would like to jump in:
    Raz, you use these forums to preach. Many of us do not like it. There are many times I wanted to tell you to go f' yourself. If you want to bring up your religion all the damn time, then please pick the rant and rave forum. Every damn time you contribute to a thread with your personal nonsensical beliefs, they should, per itulip, be sent to the abyss. I have held back many times because of this. You are always derailing threads. It is uncool.

    I find your preaching and personal fantasies to be extremely offensive as well. Stop the proselytizing. They have other forums for that.

    Aaron
    , I'd like to jump back in, specifically to your assertion that I "highjacked" this thread. Please take this hyperlink back to the original post; read it; denote the topic; then tell me just precisely how I took the thread completely off topic. http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...44002#poststop

    You have every right to disagree with my views. You do not have the right to curse me, insult me and LIE about me.

    "Stop the proselytizing". Why don't you stop the lying? I did not tell you or anyone else that "you need Jesus". I did not try to convince you or your friends to become Orthodox Christians. "Stop the proselytizing" to people like you apparently means that I have no right to my opinions on archaelogy, evolution, human embriology, abortion or anything other than the price of gold because you disagree with them or find them offensive. Well I find some of the opinions on this forum to be grossly, sickeningly offensive, but I don't demand that they be removed or insult and curse those who hold them.

    Try the ignore setting if you don't want to read my posts. You're NOT the iTulip censor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Woodsman
    replied
    Re: Political Science

    Read this again today and immediately thought of you, Raz. I must say, I admit to sometimes being put off by your POV too, but I've never been more put off than I was by how you were treated. It seems like a decidedly uncharacteristic moment here behind the iTulip paywall and I didn't like it at all. I don't recall seeing any rule or warning that the theistic viewpoint is not welcome here. FWIW, I think there's room enough here for theistic, atheistic, and pantheistic viewpoints informing our conversations. The way I see it, iTulip is "about" earning and keeping wealth and how to navigate the uncertain times ahead and it would be a poorer place if we have to tiptoe around some of the more contentious areas of debate. But I'm just a newbie 99%er, so what do I know?

    Still, it makes me wonder when I will set off the tripwire and go BOOM. Me, I'm a wobbly agnostic that leans more towards the "perennial theology" so I doubt it will be god-talk that gets me tossed. But it's never been clearer to me that every community has its orthodoxy and woe to us who run afoul of it. And damn if I don't always do.

    Between Heaven & Hell

    Leave a comment:


  • Woodsman
    replied
    Re: Political Science

    Thanks for the clarification. I haven't encountered this term before. As for the avatar, it is "The Woodsman" by Ivan Kramskoi. He was an artist of the Peredvizhniki or "Wanderers" movement in late 19th Century Russia. I'm mad about Russian art.

    Leave a comment:


  • reggie
    replied
    Re: Political Science

    Originally posted by radon View Post
    Science requires no faith whatsoever. One of the points of scientific method it to remove human predispositions from the process of observation. Mathematicians in particular loath to accept anything without the rigors of proof. Faith indeed.
    Oi vey! You have been successfully brainwashed. Which "Institution" did this to you? I'm especially dismayed with your characterization of mathematics and mathemeticians, especially given incompletenes proven in 1925.

    If Scientism-bots are going to populate this thread with such mindless programming, fine. But don't expect to be treated kindly when you demonstrate such limited knowledge of history, especially when it comes to the discussion of science and faith. Robert Boyle's a great place to start, you know, the Boyles Law guy. He wrote a book on the subject and developed at least 8-dfferent definitions of science in his process to deal with this question.

    I'll post a video presentation by MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson if I can find it, as he just published a book also dealing with this subject matter, "Monopolizing Knowledge", and discusses how "Scientism" was considered a religion and evolved out of religious doctrine.

    On Edit: As just one bizarre example, Science can not tell us what Time is or whether it even exists as humans perceive it. If you buy into Einstein's Theory of Relativity, then Time does NOT exist, and is merely a human perception of frequency, which certainly does NOT "remove it from Human predispositions." So, if Time doesn't exist, how does one even start to explain Theories of Evolution?

    Like I said earlier in the thread, I'm with Thomas Kunh.... science makes leaps that may or not be based upon previous findings, and certainly does not necessarily bring humanity any closer to Truth. It does, however, facilitate the development of kewel little toys in the form of technology, too bad most of this is deployed for the purpose of social control which is undectable by just about everyone.
    Last edited by reggie; 12-16-12, 07:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Raz
    replied
    Re: Political Science

    Originally posted by aaron View Post
    I would like to jump in:
    Raz, you use these forums to preach. Many of us do not like it. There are many times I wanted to tell you to go f' yourself. If you want to bring up your religion all the damn time, then please pick the rant and rave forum. Every damn time you contribute to a thread with your personal nonsensical beliefs, they should, per itulip, be sent to the abyss. I have held back many times because of this. You are always derailing threads. It is uncool.

    I find your preaching and personal fantasies to be extremely offensive as well. Stop the proselytizing. They have other forums for that.
    Thank you for your kind and thoughtful words. I didn't re-animate the discussion. I was perfectly willing to let it die.

    If you will go back and read the posts you won't find me citing scripture or any theologians concerning preborn humans or homosexuality.
    My arguments were based entirely upon human embriology.


    I'll take your criticisms to heart, though and accept that my opinions are not valid in the politically correct world of compassionate, tolerant atheism.

    I'll try to read only
    EJ, bart and Finster and keep my ignorant, uninformed, stupid "bible-thumping" opinions to myself.


    Leave a comment:


  • radon
    replied
    Re: Political Science

    Originally posted by vinoveri View Post
    Regarding mathematics, all mathematical systems and constructs are based on a set of "axioms" which are assumptions/postulates/first principles that are taken "on faith" in order to derive and get value from the mathematical system. There is of course nothing wrong with this; in fact it is a requirement to move forward with the math system. Are you familiar with:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's...eness_theorems ?
    This is precisely why I used the word loath. Definitions, certain degenerate cases, decidability in large systems can all be used as examples where proof is not possible. But equating the acceptance of a set of sometimes arbitrary definitions with an act of faith in the religious sense is a bit of a stretch. We might as well call coming to a consensus on spelling an act of faith. Besides if mathematicians enjoyed relying on faith they wouldn't waste lifetimes reducing the number of axioms or proving the obvious.

    Originally posted by vinoveri View Post
    Regarding physics/science, "there is order to the universe" and "rigorous application of the scientific method will lead to discovery and understanding of nature and its rules" are 2 examples, both of which are true of course, of the "taking it as self-evident truths" or faith. The mind would not even embark on the hypothesis/experiment/conclusion unless it believed in the order of the universe and reproducibility of results to begin with.
    I'm not sure I understand your point. It would be perfectly reasonable to reject these things if the observable universe proved otherwise.

    Leave a comment:


  • vinoveri
    replied
    Re: Political Science

    Originally posted by radon View Post
    Science requires no faith whatsoever. One of the points of scientific method it to remove human predispositions from the process of observation. Mathematicians in particular loath to accept anything without the rigors of proof. Faith indeed.
    Regarding mathematics, all mathematical systems and constructs are based on a set of "axioms" which are assumptions/postulates/first principles that are taken "on faith" in order to derive and get value from the mathematical system. There is of course nothing wrong with this; in fact it is a requirement to move forward with the math system. Are you familiar with:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems ?

    Regarding physics/science, "there is order to the universe" and "rigorous application of the scientific method will lead to discovery and understanding of nature and its rules" are 2 examples, both of which are true of course, of the "taking it as self-evident truths" or faith. The mind would not even embark on the hypothesis/experiment/conclusion unless it believed in the order of the universe and reproducibility of results to begin with.

    Leave a comment:


  • lektrode
    replied
    Re: Political Science

    Originally posted by aaron View Post
    There are definitely fairy tales in there. They are the as means of educating people. Most could not read. These stories had to be read aloud or by memory. And, they had to be interesting, no? We teach morals with Hollywood movies these days. ....
    now thats a stretch, mr a.
    seems to me whats being 'learned' from (most) of hollywierd is anything BUT 'moral'
    would go so fars to say that its the primary reason/focus of why the true stone-age types (over there in the middle east)
    are trying to take us out

    just sayin.

    Leave a comment:


  • radon
    replied
    Re: Political Science

    Originally posted by Raz View Post
    Please explain to me how a male fetus (Y chromasomes) with a different blood type is part of a woman's body. The mixing of those two blood types would cause death.
    You are the one putting forth "non-scientific babble" - not me. Go ahead: put forth your argument based only upon human anatomy and physiology.

    Facts, please.
    That a zygote is somehow objectively better than any of the other millions of cells I shed every day is the height of human conceit.

    Leave a comment:


  • radon
    replied
    Re: Political Science

    Originally posted by reggie View Post
    Do me a favor, DEFINE "science" for all of us. And, also tell me this, does "science", whatever that is, actually move humanity closer to "TRUTH"? (ie. the Karl Popper view)
    If you think the purpose of science is to bring truth as put forth by your deity of choice to humanity you are mistaken. Maybe you could try wikipedia for a primer on science and why it works.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X