casual abortion

[rainofkayos]

So you read the original research and decided it didnt stand up, that's grand! But you'll recall that you're initial response to my links was

"All those studies that support the idea are not peer reviewed. They are not scientificly aproved or confirmed. You might as well provide links to articles out of cosmo magazine. It doesn't add much credibility to the fact that all those links are from the same source"

Dude, that's really the only problem that I had with this! Quite apart from the patronising comment about 'cosmo', your statement that PubMed was a non-peer reviewed 'magazine' is itself fallacious! If you've read the research and you're not happy with it that's fine with me! I'm not trying to tell you your wrong or right I simply put the links in there so that everyone could go do some research, because I couldnt be arsed! I'm not 'sidestepping' I'm just not interested in getting into a big philosophical debate on the subject, go argue with the other people on this thread who care about it! I smoke! I am the evildoer!

Your statement that there was 'no evidence' was fallacious. You have reviewed the evidence and have found it unconvincing, fair enough, all I did was point out that there is research out there and encouraged everyone to go check it out for themselves.

I'm not sure exactly what the "logically fallacious arguements" and "appealling to authority" thing is, but to be honest I'm not really that bothered, so dont worry about it!

I'll be in Perth later on this year, so I'll be sure to stop by!

 

[HengkyW]

Really? I didn't find that point to be particularly relevant but if you say its your main point then I'll address it specifically. The point you made is that even if a homosexual doesn't act on their homosexual desires they are still there and thus likewise humans whether they choose to admit to or act on their base desires/instincts still have them.

However, why I considered this point fairly irrelevant is I never suggested that humans didn't have instincts. I suggested instead that humans clearly have the capacity to choose whether or not to act on their instincts and also argued that in the vast majority of cases where there is a conflict humans will chose societal norms over fulfilling instinctual desires. In extreme circumstances you may be right that instictual survival mechanism plays a greater role than social conformity but such extreme circumstances are rare and also I assumed you were suggesting instinct ALWAYS plays a more significant role due to quotes like the ones below:




You related monogamy to this point but I also didn't ever argue that homo sapiens formed pair bonds due to reacting to a social hierarchy. In fact I said following my comments on ape hierarchies that "this is all fairly irrelevant to humans as the majority of evidence as I already mentioned suggests our species has pretty much always formed long term pair bonds."

Which raises the next point you asked of:

I was aware I didn't go into detail into the evidence suggesting our species formed lifetime pair bonds for quite some time but I did provide you with the authors who I have most recently read who presented the evidence: which is quite sizeable and would take quite a while to suofftopicrise. I would point out that you originally didn't go into detail as to why you believe the contrary besides suggesting it is a 'fact of nature' or provide any references to authorities who support your views so it seems a little rich for you to post such a condescending comment. To make it fair I'll post up a suofftopicry of the evidence for pair bonding being quite natural for humans when you post up a suofftopicry of the evidence that its not.


By us I meant individuals... the notion that animals would do things 'for the good of their species' was quite roundly trounced in 'The Selfish gene' back as early as 1976. Genuine altruism is ridiculously rare and is constrained only to species with the capacity to go against their insticts i.e. homo sapiens.

As for sources about apes mating being related to their position in their groups hierarchy type the following "apes, mating and hierarchy" into google (I just did and found a good bunch of well sourced scientific websites) or download any nature documentary about any of the great apes...

Lastly, about the smoking business Im with NinjaBelly you suggested there were no academic studies that proved a link between passive smoking and health problems and you were provided with around 10. You commented that they were not peer reviewed and therefore invalid and you were wrong. Your now claiming you have read all of them (in the space of a day) and consider them all to be flawed which is fine but personally I'd be more inclined to believe the findings of a team of experts convened by the World Health Organisation to assess the accuracies of the link than the son of a doctor whose scientific background seems to be focused on physics. Your free to disagree but to suggest that all the evidence is made up seems a bit unlikely to me... inhaling the smoke from cigarettes increases the chances of cancer in smokers and thats the same smoke passive smokers are forced to inhale. I do agree however that the dangers may well be overhyped.

EDIT: and having read your most recent post it doesn't sound like you disagree on most points so I guess wires must have got crossed along the way. I do agree with you that the issue isn't black&white though but I think that anyone with experience with working in a bar knows quite well how much fun passive smoking can be.

 

[neccie_09]

Okay, my attack on pubmed may have been unwarrented. So I was in the wrong. I assumed it was an unreliable source, simply because to my experience, peer-reviewed studies such as those have me usually convinced. Not so in this case. So, my bad.

Obviously, Biology and Physics are different. So again, my bad.

If you are saying there is evidence that suggests passive smoking is not good, then I totally agree. When I see mothers smoking around their Babies I want to slap them.

However, I am saying there is no evidence to suggest it is lethal (except to possibly some circumstancial case) and that the hype about it is inacurate. I still stand by this.

Those who suggest it has been proven, you are wrong. If you read everything in this thread so far, and you still draw that conclusion, then so be it. Nothing left to say that will make you see things differently.

Goober, I never said direct smoking is not harmful. But even smoking itself and its supposed dangers is overblown these days. You can smoke your arse off and not get cancer or heart disease if you compensate by being fit and eating healthy. Genetics also play into it, but once again, it has already been mentioned in this thread.

Cigar smoking - to my general knowledge, so I could be wrong - has a significantly lower rate for lung cancer and lung problems. Simply because you do not inhale it to the same extent of cigarettes. It still destroys your throat and your mouth, but I think you can see my point ?

If cigar smoking has lower cancer rates - simply from not inhaling it - but you still put the stuff in your mouth. Surely you can grasp that passive smoking - wether harmful or not - cannot possibly have the same effects as direct smoking?

That all said and done, I don't think there's much left here to debate. For those that are so convinced that your mate that smokes is gonna kill you, do some research. It's not such a black&white issue.

 

[JustListen]

That being the case, I think you found the source of our disagreement. I may have worded it badly, as I often do, but I was trying to say that Instinct will always have the potential to overrule morality when it matters. It is always there, and when the need arises, it will be more important. Instinct is what keeps us alive.

Keep in mind, pleasing society (adapting to moral systems) is part of the social animals' instincts.



I have read material by Dawkins on the matter earlier. I figured that would be enough to suofftopicrise. So it didn't take me quite a while. That's all.



I was well aware of that as I asked for evidence, but I asked because I would have liked some. Didn't mean to offend or be condescending. I didn't intially provide sources because I didn't think the debate was going to draw on this far, because at the time I was actually 'debating' with Endeavor who I doubt would have read any sources. It is 12.45am here So excuse me for not providing sources in this post either. Will do tomorrow.



That's cool.





I don't think it is "made up" as such, but I don't think it holds. The nature of the evidence is which bothers me. I fail to see how the research could be acurate, considering the nature of it.

Well, I really need to get some sleep now

 

[xxmylovexx]

I believe there is a health risk from second hand smoke, but this risk will vary according to the genetic make-up of the individual. If I’m prone to cancer via second hand smoke then I’m just as likely to get it from pollution. If I did get it then most people will automatically attribute it to second hand smoke.

 

[Nivek]

I don't think he is denying that there is a risk. He is arguing that the risk is dependent of certain factors. Some people are just more prone to the risks than other, but stating absolutely that second hand smoking is a cause is misleading.

Someone can smoke 40-60 a day for 50 years and not have that much effect, while someone can smoke 15 a day for 10 years and be on a death bed. Smoking is no place for blanket statements.

 

[ApophisAscended]

Wow...replies to my posts come with the attitude, "He believes in God, so he is completely ignorant to science, so lets educate him in this matter." Let me clear this up....I'm not someone who sees a lightbulb light up and says "black magic." I really don't appreciate the condescending attitude.

I don't want to argue, but I cant stand by and allow people to say incorrect things and act like those things are fact. Your explanation for Big Bang from earlier was incorrect/did not apply to my question Bendzr, so I will answer it when I have time later. Just because someone believes in God doesn't mean he ignores science. I don't believe that science disproves God, as many of the others do. The other thing most said was that they simply did not know what happened. If you do not know what happened, then how can you automatically say one possibility is wrong. Now I understand agnostics at least. They are smart in the fact that they admit that they don't know.
Interesting point you made Aegis...I'll try to address it in my reply as well, but later. I don't remember exactly what you said.
PS. I wasn't asking how the universe began to expand or questioning the theory that a gravitational singularity existed before the big bang. I was simply asking where even this gravitational singularity came from. Absolutely nothing supposedly existed at some point, or did this singularity exist for eternity, and only recently (12-14 billion years ago) begin to expand. Or did God exist? We don't know. I believe one thing, and you the other. The quantum tunneling you speak of has nothing to do with the answer to the question. I'll explain it later if I have time. The next question comes: we have multiple gravitational singularites that exist in our universe as well, like those that are supposed to exist in black holes. The fact that a gravitational singularity exists doesn't mean that it will begin to expand into a universe, or will they? This is where quantum tunneling applies Bendzr, with the expansion of these singularites. Will we have multiple universes contained within our own someday? Is our universe contained within another, or was ours the first? This is off topic anyway, but it shows how much we don't know. And a side note, Stephen Hawking does not know everything. He as well as other scientists can only guess what happened. They may base it on some observations, but it is never conclusive. We may never know what exactly happened.
Learn to differentiate between "theory" and "fact."

PPS
What strange arguments for smoking in public. If it causes cancer in some individuals, but not all, then why allow it? Survival of the fittest? If you make a choice to smoke, and you know the risks, then do whatever you want. If you are exposing others around you who did not make the choice to smoke, it shouldn't be allowed.

I'm tired of the response, "prove it". Once we show a study that supports it, you say that it doesn't conclusively prove it because of whatever reason, and we are back to square one. Would any of the pro-secondhand smoke people make an effort and show us a study where secondhand smoke is proven to not be bad, so that we can criticize it?

 

[jca]

After all of that, I think it comes down to a point where you need to be more specific about your questions then. Reading that first paragraph in your post was very hard to understand. It's hard enough to discuss these topics, so some more paragraphs and a bit of organisation in your posts would make it maybe a little easier.



Learn what "theory" means in Scientific terms. [whisper] it actually falls higher than 'fact' in the explanation tree [/whisper]



You cannot possibly do such a study. Not for, or against. Even if I did provide hundreds of studies on this topic, they would be irrelevant. You cannot pin point the effects of something as small as passive smoking.

It would be like trying to do a study on the effects of putting some extra cheese on your McDonald burger and the increased health risks resulting. Sure you could do a study, but I think I'll rather make my mind up using some simple thought.

That is why any sources for either case breaks down. The factors/variables are too circumstancial.

So, why am I against anti-passive-smoking laws ? Because it has had a history of false, made up studies. And there is an underlying agenda on most peoples minds, because they do not like smoke. They want it to be harmful. It gives them more justification in making smoking illegal.

Why is there so much hype about passive-smoking ? Why is there not the same amount of hype regarding fumes from car engines ? Both are harmful. Hell, last time I checked our planet was dying from the latter. Not the former.

Global warming should be more hyped up than peoples annoyance towards smokers. Very sadly, it isn't.

 

[buddy_z34]

Car engines have very little to do with the polutants affecting weather. Industry and waste refuse emmisions and the farts of bovines riased for the meat industry have as much or more to do with it.

 

[AwesomeGirl]

Well, car emissions contain noticable quantities of COx and NOx (the x being a variable to show that different compounts exist that still consist of C or N and some O), which is why engine laws exist in most countries, along with emission laws and the catalytic converters which allow cars to meet these requirements (eg in this country there is a maximum allowable emission of CO from an exhaust pipe connected to an idling engine)

Even with the rather sketchy information available on the actual effects of global warming (it's happening, but the actual reason why seems to change fairly regularly; best bet is that it's a combination of natural climate change and our own industrial interference), most countries in the world have realised that emissions can't be good for the environment even if they can't always work out why they're specifically bad.

However, this same logic was not applied to cigarettes in this country until recently. The suspected health risks to bystanders is based on the knowledge of the chemicals present in the exhaled smoke, which are almost certainly higher than for cleaner air. In addition to this, you have the fairly simple annoyances which stack up when having to spend time in a smokey atmosphere: clothes which reek in the morning, sore eyes (especially with contact lenses), coughing, sore lungs (yes, it happens) as well as anything else I've forgotten in this list. Compared to this accumulated list, legally requiring a smoker to go outside to indulge in their habit doesn't really seem all that unreasonable. Note that I am not in favour of a total smoking ban as I feel that what people put into their bodies is their own business as long as it doesn't affect others.

 

[firstsig]

CKava, finally, I will get back to topic at hand.

Just to refresh; You disagree with me when I initially said that Humans are not naturally monogomous. You suggest that Apes, and close relatives of ours do not sleep around and that Apes are naturally monogomous. I asked for evidence beyond an Authors name*. You ask for evidence to show that Apes, are not monogomous.

*(I have read on Dawkins on the topic, which did not entirely support the idea of Monogomy as a natural behaviour in humans. It actually was about explaining why we are becoming more monogomous as opposed to our history. It was more about the evolution of sociology. So, the source you provided in terms of an Author made me confused, since I got the impression Dawkins was saying that Monogomy is only becoming more comon because of Social evolution. Not because it is what Apes naturally do.)

Now, I find it odd that you actually need evidence for the idea that Apes and Humans - to be quite blunt - are sluts. Since a quick trip to the Zoo will suffice. But, I will do as you ask.

Reasons why Apes, Chimpanzees (our closest relative) and Humans are not naturally Monogomous...

50% of Marriages end up in Divorce. I don't have the source for this, but this is an accepted statistic pretty much between everyone I know. Based on what I have seen regarding people and marriages, I would say it seems true enough. Through my childhood I would say roughly half of my friends had divorced parents.

If you don't agree - although I doubt you would - then I will try find a source to this. I would prefer to spend my time on constructive things, so excuse me if I assume wrongly about what you agree on.

People sleep around. Not much to prove here. The fact that there are shows such as Jerry Springer and Cheaters does it for me. Plus the fact that I have personally had a 3 year relationship end because of this reason. And no, I wasn't the guilty party

Every day observations aside...

History supports the idea that humans are not monogomous. All our Religious texts have documentation of polygomous behaviour. It also follows that if we are naturally Monogomous, then there would be no reason for Religious laws regarding the sin of polygomy.

http://sshi.stanford.edu/Conferences/1999-2000/empires/scheidel.pdf



http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1204826.htm





Unrelated discussion, but mentions some relevant points.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/11/the_evolution_o_3.html







Chimps = Polagymous
Gorrilla = Polagymous
Gibbons = Monogamous

Which 2 of those 3 do you think we are most closely related to ?

I can post more, if that does not do it, but I would imagine it cuts it.

Cheers.

 

[rw1024]

Thank you very much BendzR I'll get back to you as soon as I have the time to write a detailed enough response.

 

[Nessie]

Maybe this is why we are disagreeing as you have clearly took me up wrong. I do disagree with you on point 1 but on point 2 you have gotten the complete wrong end of the stick.

Here is what I actually said:
I said that other great apes do not just "do whatever they want" in regards their sexual relations.
I said that generally their sexual relations relate to their position in their group hierarchy.

I never suggested that it was common for great apes besides humans to be monogamous. I suggested that your comment that apes "just do whatever they like" was false and it still is.

This comment after discussing ape mating habits for example makes it clear I never intended a parralel to be drawn between human and other great ape mating habits:
Anyhow, this is all fairly irrelevant to humans as the majority of evidence as I already mentioned suggests our species has pretty much always formed long term pair bonds.

Since I think this illustrates we are perhaps going to end up arguing in circles while overall agreeing I would like to make a few things clear. Firstly, to clarify by using the term monogamous I am using it not as a religious definition but as 'The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time' this does not preclude the possibility of having more than one partner but just not at the same time. So I apologise for using the term 'lifetime pairbond' in my initial post, I should have said 'longterm'. Secondly, I am not going to address your points relating to mating habits of other apes because I don't disagree with you there however I would point out to you that humans are in many respects unique amongst the great apes and the ape category in general- do you know of any other majoritively hairless apes? Yet if we followed the logic your using for mating the fact that all out closest ancestors are covered with dense hair would mean that we must be too. Thirdly, I am not denying polygamy has and does occur I am disagreeing with you that it is has been the 'natural' mating pattern for humans throughout history.

Now to your points:

First the observation about 50% of marriages ending in divorce is irrelevant. That pair bonds regularly break down in modern society is due to many factors most of which bear little relevance to the suggestion that humans are not 'naturally' monogamous given that lifespans and lifestyles of modern man are rather unlike those faced by homosapiens at any other point in history. Anyhow I would suggest that it is more often the case that one person leaves one such pair bond to form another not to engage in a series of simultaneous sexual relationships. As for your point about religious rules; religions tend to ban a variety of things including things like homosexual activity so Im curious would you also argue that based on its banning homosexuality was the standard mating pattern for our species throughout history?

Second, you didn't actually provide a suofftopicry of the evidence you simply selected choice quotes and provided me with links to documents (good sources though). So in return I'll do the same for you:


http://anthologyoi.com/read-26.html

One case study showing some modern discussion on pair bonding:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/acrobatfiles/critical.pdf


http://www.neuro.fsu.edu/faculty/wang/04Nat%20Neurosci.pdf

Suffice to say that I much like you could go on providing endless links to such sources and choosing select quotes. I don't feel like doing this though and I imagine you don't wither so to suofftopicrise my position:

I do actually agree with you now that I've had a more indepth look that there is a good counter argument towards polygamy HOWEVER I still think you are wrong to present it as the 'natural' mating practice of humans as there is also equally good evidence for monogamy being 'natural' and clearly there is an ongoing debate on this. You don't find the evidence you've read convincing fine and I appreciate you were debating with the highly infuriating Endeavour but I only originally questioned your statements because you presented them as if there was a complete consensus about humans naturally being polygamous which there isn't. It seems to me however that the most sensible course of action is agree to disagree... thank you for providing me with the links.

 

[MissChristeenie]

Remember that human mating systems can also vary culturally depending on factors such as available resources eg polyandry in parts of Tibet, where a woman marries a family of brothers so as to avoid splitting up land resources between them

 

[SammieJo]

...


What? We are looking at apes now to prove humans have a polygamous nature? We may be related to apes, but we are a different species. Looking at chimpanzees and saying that they are polygamous is nothing compared to the history of human beings...
50% of marriages end in divorce, in this society. Other societies have different rates that are much, much lower. Looking at one society, can we conclude anything about the entire human species?

 

[bommarito_c]

He's not kidding you and in fact he is right. He is talking about scientific theories and scientific facts. Not random unsupported theories versus verified facts. A scientific theory must take into account the entire range of scientific facts it seeks to explain and offer predictions by which the theory can be falsified if they turn out to be wrong. Thus a theory in the scientific community is of more significance than a single fact as a theory will be based on thousands of individual facts.

To illustrate it is a fact that if you drop an apple it will fall down. However it is the theory of gravity which has enabled us to explain how and why this happens. Without theories you just have a collection of unrelated facts...


I know this might not seem that important but Im on a one man mission on MAP to make this fact widely known: Humans are apes... we are a unique species of ape but we are still in the ape category. I do think your point is valid though regardless of our zoological classification.

 

[jpattonfamily]

l

 

[PerfectlyFlawed]

Sorry for assuming that, it was because you said "we may be related to apes but..." I mean imagine if someone said "we may be related to maofftopicls but..." you would assume they are discluding us from the category wouldn't you? but I do realise its difficult to always use terms that make it clear humans are apes as well as being related to other apes. Its just on threads discussing the topic it has been raised many times that people do not accept that humans are apes when we are so I just try to point it out that we are to avoid this happening.

Wasn't trying to argue with you MAnewbie just clarify what BendzR was getting at and it seems like you don't particularly disagree in the end.

EDIT: And about the atom example it is a good illustration of the process I discussed; Initial facts are collected: a theory to explain them is created (Electrons orbiting a nucleus) and offers predictions. This theory is later falsified as its predictions are proved false under certain conditions (Quantum physics) ... a new theory emerges to explain these new facts. And now if Im correct they are looking for a new grand theory which unifies the theories of quantum physics and classical physics.

 

[TayleeC]

CKava,

I think our disagreement comes majorly from lack of acurate word-use. Nothing more. I did not intitially pick up your exact meaning with some of the words you used. The reason I opened my post with a "refresh" was to make sure that if there was such confusion, you could point it out. I don't think our views contradict each other much, and I get what you are saying now.

MAnewbie,

CKava covered the point regarding Scientific Theory. It may seem bizarre to suggest Theory (word which in everyday life you associate with 'Estimate' or 'Guess') is higher than Fact (word which in everday life you associate with 'True' and 'Proven') but you will find it makes sense when you study the matter further.

If you are actually willing to accept I know what I'm talking about, Look up "Scientific Method", "Scientific Theory" and "Occams Razor" and you will see.

I am not joking, nor am I wrong. Any non-scientist may disagree with me on this, simply because they lack the education or understanding. Scientist however will confirm everything I said.

The divorce point I made was to counter the idea that CKava proposed about "life long" bonds which he has corrected himself in, so that is irrelevant now. If you are going to argue against my posts regarding Human Monogomy/Polygamy then it would be better if you adressed the significant points I made (the ones I actually backed up with reliable sources).

Saying Chimpanzees are polygamous does not prove definite facts about Human history, but it sure as hell isn't "nothing" either. As you suggest.

I wasn't using Chimpanzees as a way to confirm my points towards Human history. I was using references to studies of human history to confirm my points on human history. Care to adress those ?

Lastly, regarding Smoking vs Global-Warming, you clearly missed my point.

I was not saying Smoking has any effect on Global-Warming. I was using the comparison to illustrate how people are making hype over an issue when they fail to care much about a much more important one.

And no, people do not dislike smoking primarily because of the potential risks of Passive Smoking. They dislike it because it stinks, and is unpleasant.

If 'risk' was the significant factor, issues such as Global-Warming wouldn't be playing second-fiddle to something like Passive Smoking.

 

[mark_energy]

Sorry about that CKava . I feel dumb now for replying like that.

Oh my..Bendzr...read my post before. I know the difference between theory and fact. Can you please stop attacking unclear language and focus on the main idea.