mdk

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by mdk>

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3786754
<Snipped quote>
Here ya go! :) I have multitudes saved and am entirely willing to debate! Also, I hope you don't mind, but I cited directly rather than from memory, as that tends to be more accurate~

@NightinGem

That's (a) wildly out of context, (b) not an assertion, and (c) not backed up by any experimentation or evidence.

A. The subject of the article, quoted here (first the objective statement, then the conclusion):

First, to what extent are sex and gender incorporated into research on genetics and health? Second, how might social science understandings of sex and gender, and gender differences in health, become more integrated into scholarship in this area?

...

We argue that making the connection between sex-linked biological variation and gender differences in health outcomes will benefit from greater attention to the intertwining of social and biological variation over the life course.

Social construction of gender, as it is presented in this article, relates to workplace morbidity, educational advancement, and the like. In no way is the article asserting that biological sex and gender ARE different -- rather, it argues that by considering the social factors (such as workplace risks and education), conclusions resultant from sex will make more sense.

B. The article does not at any point assert there is a difference; if it did, it would have to present support for that argument, but it does not.

C. The methodology of this research is metadata analysis of other articles searched by keyword. It's glorified googling. No actual science took place.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@mdk Fear not, Science is still out there sciencing despite the non stop effort to suppress conclusions that people don't like. And the constant cut backs in pure research budgets of course, because why are we spending all this money on understanding the universe anyway!

Que someone finding an out of context article for some weird sounding grant.

I guess doing research in the university setting is becoming harder now that they are apparently free fire zones which require the national guard to keep order. Or so I gather from the comments around the place.

@Penny

uh........ okay?

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I would look at peer-reviewed scientific journals, most which which, surprise, support the idea that gender and sex are different!

@NightinGem

Cite one. Cite one from memory.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Religion makes scientific claims. It always has. God created man, earth is the center of the universe and so on. In so much as religion makes false and baseless claims it IS the duty of science to disprove it.

@Penny

If we could just go back to what science used to mean, I'd be a lot more comfortable with it. Science is kinda garbage right now, largely because of financial/political pressures on the people conducting it.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

At every slightest discovery people have been going "aha, your religion's dead!" and that won't really stop happening because religion shan't ever die out in a real way; there will always be unanswered questions, and of course even if all of them are answered there will yet be more like "why this specific set of rules in the natural world instead of some other one?" which really can only be answered from a supernatural point of view.

Hedonistic excess was an attempt as an answer before but the people of this excess generally were "weaker" and lead to their own downfall; people of religion were the ones who usually pulled people out of these pitfalls, be it a long time ago with Constantine, Martin Luther, Kirkegaard, the counter-revolutionaries in Eastern Europe, or as of recent Prof. Jordan Peterson. We might some day outgrow organized religion but spirituality will never, ever really disappear.

@Andreyich

Add to this, the point of religion is not to disprove science, and the point of science is not to disprove religion. They exist in two completely separate realms -- the observable, and the unobservable -- and they only get conflated because people are dumb (observable). I typed this post while sticking out my tongue -- whether you choose to believe that, or to disbelieve it, you are just a stupid pile of human flesh with no way of knowing. Maybe don't wrap your ENTIRE LIFE around me sticking out my tongue, but also, there's no sense calling the people who buy it stupid. They know as much as you do, and hey, maybe they're right.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

(language warning)

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote>
Both of those are wrong. Islam has Sunnis and Shiites and there are weird cults of it too (weirder than the normal variant, that is) and Ireland had Catholicism and Protestancy.

@Andreyich

Kinda the point though isn't it? Europe got so Christian that people started killing one another over their flavor of Christian, and the same in the middle east with Islam (when they weren't fighting one another). Conformity gained nothing. It's really handy in a war, but not so much when trying to just exist as a country.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

*snip*

@IceHeart

Common misconception in the West. The middle east is VERY homogeneous in terms of religion/ideology and it hasn't precisely been a hotbed of peace and unity. And before we blame ALLLLLLL of that on ebul Islam, Ireland wasn't much different back in the IRA glory days.

Everyone being the same (religion, political party, pick your physical or ideological denomination of choice) hasn't brought lasting peace in like any of the places it's happened. If anything it seems to make things worse. It's a total red herring.

The closest thing we've found to a panacea for violence, is democracy. Western democracies don't fight each other, like, ever, in the history of ever. I mean we bomb the living shit out of other countries, all day erry day, but if we just AMERICAIZED everybody else, that would totally stop happening right? So the answer to world peace is TOTAL CONQUEST. YOU MUST SURRENDER UNCONDITIONALLY OR THE BOMBS WILL CONTINUE WITHOUT END. IT'S FOR PEACE.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

The winning will continue until morale improves.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

True that may be @mdk, but there are those we are well aware of who desire to "even the odds" for the sake of "equality" rather than actual equality and opportunity, no less allocating resources or time to it. I have heard my fair share that somehow it is an evil thing to want people to compete against one another, how someone is at proposed disadvantage, or how it should be my duty to support them by coercion rather than my personal desire.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity

Well I disagree with those people regarding politics and therefore they are morally bankrupt.