Jump to content

coffeesippin

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    302
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by coffeesippin


  1. 6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    Ethics - The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group or culture.

    Morals - Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. While morals also prescribe dos and don'ts, morality is ultimately a personal compass of right and wrong.

    https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

    Your source just conflates the two. We don''t have 'committees of morals', we have 'ethics committees'... do we not?

    It seems we do not have ethics committees, only empowerment committees, to decide what moral codes must be rewritten to allow the expansion of empire.  


  2. 10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    Yes but your moral compass may diverge from that.

    What causes you to say it is ethical?    

    eth·ics
    /ˈeTHiks/
    noun
     
    1. 1.
      moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
      "medical ethics also enter into the question"
      synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, standards (of behavior), value system, virtues, dictates of conscience
      "your so-called newspaper is clearly not burdened by a sense of ethics"
      •  
         
    2. 2.
      the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
    Morals:
    "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do."
     
    So the persons with the biggest guns, the fastest draws, the most accurate aim, and the resources to use those to victory over another group are morally right.   At least that's what history tells us, right?  Because as we know, history is written by the winners.  It's all so simple, really.

  3. 1 hour ago, swansont said:

    That's about ethics, not morals.

    How is science being able to address a moral dilemma (at some future date) relevant? That doesn't imply science currently has an approach to morality. It implies that it currently has no identifiable overlap. 

    .

    "What is the difference between ethics morals and values?
    A person who knows the difference between right and wrong and chooses right ismoral. A person whose morality is reflected in his willingness to do the right thing – even if it is hard or dangerous – is ethical. Ethics are moral values in action." 
     
     In another definition ethics are described as rules imposed on someone by someone else whose morals are setting the rules, as ethics are said to be always considerate of right action over wrong .. though murder is considered ethical by some people in positions of great power, for instance democratic power.  So it is a big discussion, the difference between ethics and morals, if there is one.
     
    The writer of the Scientific American article is ONE person only expressing his or her opinion but writing in the tricky 'Royal We' to give strength to his or her argument, which is NOT against the idea of scientific morality.  ("Just because we cannot yet think of how science might resolve this or that)  There are other writers who express that science CAN be used to measure morality.  Whether they are right or wrong is also a large topic of discussion.           
    I don't think science has failed, by the way, as statistical science shows certain actions are much more likely to lead to death than other certain actions .. and as I think a good definition of morality is that which leads to life. 
     
    5 hours ago, studiot said:

    Have you seen the film 'Spotlight'  ?

    Which is more immoral

    Many men of the Church abusing young boys

    or

    Those in authority who knew about it

    or

    The 'God" that allowed it to happen?

     

    What figures can you offer that Science ever worked like this?

    I haven't watched that film, but as a boy and very young and naive man I was sexually molested three times by men, not in a religious setting though, so I know the trauma. 

     You call the organization in which those assaults happened the Church, but in my opinion it was/is not a church, as the bible says if authority commands not to marry they have departed from the faith, so it is not a church, as what is defined in the bible as a church is the gathering of believers in Jesus Christ, as as the Roman organization departed from the faith of Christ when they commanded their priests not to marry.  

    We can't know all of God's plans and purposes.  Perhaps he allowed the Boston incidents to happen and to be publicized to show that his will was NOT being done, that that organization is NOT his church.  Why did he allow the U.S. to drop nuclear bombs on Japan?  Why does he allow a man to lose his mind and murder his wife?  One answer is that we are not puppets or robots, that God allows us freedom, though he tries to guide us closely, whether we use freedom for good or evil appears to be our decision.  

    I hope I'm not admonished for preaching .. I'm merely answering your question the best way I can.

    Your last question I don't think I understand fully.    But part of the history of science is that philosophers became the first scientists in the relatively modern history of Europe. " Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."     I think it's easy to consider values as morals.  

    In this list, Einstein and his contemporaries of quantum physics are considered philosopher scientists.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_of_science

     

    6 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

    Why does religion tie into it?

    I said I don't see why saying we should kill Babies increases the transfer rate of STI's, as per the OP. Not what the religious position is on it.

    You're right .. a group that opposes abortions might simply be businessmen who have seen forecasts for births and deaths and believe that either increased births are necessary to fulfill the number of employees necessary to fulfill their employee needs 20 years down the road, or immigration into the nation is necessary, immigration which may not be popular..  It doesn't have to have anything to do with religion.   

        I try to remove the following 'Abstract' etc from this post as I wanted it to show as a stand alone post .. but the automatic system doesn't seem to allow me to do that ... SO ..... 

    "Abstract

    Proposes a particular ground for moral formulation that is consistent with the consensually based scientific ethic. ................................................... but it can be scientific in the sense of impartially submitting all formulations to the full reality of people's moral consensuses and interactions in everyday life."   I hope this doesn't violate this forum's rules on copyright violations.   

    http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1983-22367-001


  4. 4 hours ago, swansont said:

    Does science have an approach to morality? You have to show that this is the case before you can speak of suppressing its involvement.

    "The aim of this paper is to argue that ethics is a systematic theoretical reflection that covers the moral principles and values with a double status, philosophical and scientific, without being able to accurately distinguish which side is more important, even though, at some point, in relation to a particular issue, either the philosophical interpretation or the scientific has the power to prevail."

    https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877042814049143/1-s2.0-S1877042814049143-main.pdf?_tid=891d13d4-d245-457c-ba80-74ec31b67e93&acdnat=1542589177_2455a3495cdf93ff4a71f57914bde41f

    If you have respect for the magazine Scientific American this quote may mean something to you:  "Just because we cannot yet think of how science might resolve this or that moral conflict does not mean that the problem is an insoluble one. Science is the art of the soluble, and we should apply it where we can."   https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-right-and-wrong/

    Scientific Method and the Moral Sciences

    "IT had become a commonplace of the psychologist that there is a structure in our experience which runs out beyond what we ordinarily term our consciousness; that this structure of idea determines to a degree not generally recognized the very manner of our perception as well as that of our thinking, and that the structure itself is generally not in the focus of our attention and passes unnoticed in our thought and perceiving. It was this dependence of our field of direct experience upon such an unrecognized part of what we call mind that Freud has made the theme of his doctrines, in a realm that lies on the border of the abnormal or just over it."                  https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Mead/pubs/Mead_1923.html


  5. 2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

     

    Either way, this is a discussion we can have in another thread if you'd like, I'd be happy to join. :)

    People are still murdered. Yes. But does that mean as a society we have decided Murder isn't immoral any more? Same goes with stealing and rape.

    Morality can't be measured any more than the public opinion of it. 

     

     

    If you start a discussion please notify me I'll look into it.

    Murder:  What society do you belong to?  if you belong to the normal law abiding society murder is immoral.  If you belong to a society in which murder is acceptable murder is not immoral.  Does the 'Mafia' for instance consider murder immoral if it maintains their supremacy in crime?  Does the government consider murder moral if it is necessary to maintain their turf whether inside national borders or outside national borders?  

    For practical purposes, morality, if it is defined as that which leads away from death, can be clearly measured by the number of deaths arising from certain acts, war is immoral for instance, and measurements have been done showing for instance certain sexual acts and sexual lifestyles lead to death whereas other certain sexual acts and sexual lifestyles do not lead to death.  Of course there can be exceptions, a man and woman free of sexual infections can have a relationship of monogamous sex, the women become pregnant, and die in childbirth .. extremely rare today but possible. 

    Then there is the strange case of the African prostitutes who remain immune to HIV until they stop working at the trade.  https://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/03/us/a-new-aids-mystery-prostitutes-who-have-remained-immune.html     Perhaps the stronger morality of buying food for their children protects them from the weaker morality of selling themselves.  Perhaps after the need for selling themselves end they enter into a lifestyle of 'loose morals' and then contract HIV.  I say perhaps .. but they are an astonishing puzzle to medical science.  


  6. 18 minutes ago, Arete said:

    If it’s the sense that official statements from the CDC are superior than stuff that coffeesipper made up, then I guess so. 

    "Subsequent analyses (meta-analyses) of many studies in heterosexual couples have estimated that the effectiveness of consistent condom use ranges between 69% and 94%. Similar results (70% to 91% effectiveness) have been observed in studies of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM). This wide range of estimates may have to do with the number of studies included and the different ways in which researchers have conducted the analyses."    https://www.catie.ca/en/fact-sheets/prevention/condoms 

    4 minutes ago, beecee said:

    I'm not actually taking part in this debate, and have a busy full day ahead of me today. Let me say though, while asking questions is entirely admirable, and encouraged particularly on a science forum, the bone of contention in my opinion anyway, is that sometimes people ask questions with an agenda afoot, and with absolutely no intention of accepting any answer that may conflict with that agenda. 

    Sometimes that may be true, and seems to be demonstrated often in internet discussions.  But even if it is true in those cases, an open mind can benefit from the question and discussion.   I can't ever recall posing a question with that goal.  Despite the polarization demonstrated in discussions I try to remain open minded to information. 

    36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    Never mind, I saw how you treated Arete's evidence that you were wrong. You seem to be pretty happy in your ignorance, and that makes it hard to discuss anything meaningful with you. It's a shame.

    Well now PHI, here's what Arete presented as evidence, and my response to him:  Talk about fabrication of evidence (Arete stated CDC says 91% condom effectiveness and provided a link) 

      That link does not go to CDC it goes to POZ whatever that is, the writer in POZ using unsubstantiated statements ABOUT CDC studies but even then recognizing a 70% figure not 91%.  https://www.poz.com/article/condoms-cut-hiv-risk-91-anal-sex-new-cdc-estimate-says

    I hope, Phi, that suggests to you you might consider improving your treatment of whatever I post.

    59 minutes ago, Arete said:

    If it’s the sense that official statements from the CDC are superior than stuff that coffeesipper made up, then I guess so. 

    If in the sense that your link does not go to or anywhere NEAR the CDC, nor does information in your link document official statements from the CDC,  yet you say "official statements from the CDC" .. well .. made up stuff is made up stuff.  


  7. 6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    Never mind, I saw how you treated Arete's evidence that you were wrong. You seem to be pretty happy in your ignorance, and that makes it hard to discuss anything meaningful with you. It's a shame.

    Exactly. Gimped. Hobbled. You can't get around the knowledge very well because you don't have vital pieces of information that are keeping you from understanding. And since you could easily study what you're ridiculing, it's willful ignorance, a self-imposed set of blinders, or a ball and chain you locked on your own leg.

    You don't seem to read much in my posts.  More than once I said my question was a question not a statement or condemnation of science.  A few times I have demonstrated I have love for and respect for science.  You simply superimpose my faith in front of your eyes to deny my respect for science, you must use what you think you know of my faith as an excuse NOT to read my posts.  Here's some vital information which I presented to Arete.

     

     

    http://www.aidsmap.com/Consistent-condom-use-in-anal-sex-stops-70-of-HIV-infections-study-finds/page/2586976/

     

    An analysis by Dawn Smith of the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported at the 20th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI 2013) on 4 March has provided the first estimate of the efficacy of condoms in preventing HIV transmission during anal sex since 1989. It found condoms stop seven out of ten anal transmissions – the same efficacy found by the 1989 study.

    However, it also found that sometimes using condoms is not effective at preventing HIV infection, and that long-term 100% condom use is a minority behaviour: only one-in-six gay men actually managed to maintain it over the three- to four-year time frame of the analysis.

    One ongoing problem in assessing the effectiveness of different HIV prevention methods is that anal sex is under-studied. We do not have enough data on rectal viral loads and their effect on transmission, or on whether HIV treatment reduces transmission via anal sex as well as it does for vaginal sex.

    We are also unclear about to what extent condoms actually prevent HIV transmission in anal sex. This last fact may seem surprising, given that condoms have been recommended since the mid-1980s as the only effective HIV prevention method for gay men who have anal sex.

    In fact, there is only one large study in gay men, dating from 1989. In this study of 2914 gay men, HIV incidence among those who said they used condoms 100% of the time was 70% lower than in men who did not use them at all. There has been one small study in the era of antiretroviral treatment (ART), which found an efficacy of approximately 75%.

     

    Amongst all men having anal sex, men who said they used condoms 100% of the time were 70% less likely to acquire HIV than men who never used condoms.

    These are somewhat lower than efficacies computed for vaginal sex, which is in the order of 80 to 85%, and may reflect both that HIV is at least ten times more easily transmitted via anal than vaginal sex, and also that condoms may be more likely to fail during anal sex.

    4 minutes ago, Arete said:

    If it’s the sense that official statements from the CDC are superior than stuff that coffeesipper made up, then I guess so. 

    I have now included directly to you and PHI direct quotes from the CDC which suggest your numbers and mine are not accurate.  As I said, studies will have varying results. 

    6 minutes ago, Sensei said:

    I think so coffeesippin simply mixed HPV with HIV in the previous post.. Almost everybody have HPV in their lifetime. Majority without any symptoms.

     

    "Approximately 79 million Americans are currently infected with HPV, with roughly 14 million people becoming newly infected each year. Most men and women — about 80 percent of sexually active people — are infected with HPV at some point in their lives, but most people never know they have the virus."

     

    CDC: "HPV is so common that nearly all sexually active men and women get the virus at some point in their lives."

    https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stats.htm

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3728052/    ...  scientific study of the Canadian HPV cancer epidemic.  

    6 minutes ago, Sensei said:

     

     

    8 minutes ago, Arete said:

    If it’s the sense that official statements from the CDC are superior than stuff that coffeesipper made up, then I guess so. 

    I'll post this again for your benefit, Arete.   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3728052/     The HPV cancer epidemic in Canada, a scientific study.   I have also posted CDC quotes on the effectiveness of condoms in a certain population.


  8. 15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    Except if you go back in the thread, you can see where people have corrected some of your misunderstandings during our open-minded discussion and presentation of (mis)information. Nothing about being open-minded suggests I need to listen to you when you're wrong and it can be shown you're wrong. Open-minded people weigh the preponderance of evidence regarding an explanation of phenomena, as Arete has stated. 

    If you don't understand what you're talking about, how gimped are you in a Google search to determine the validity of a statement?

    verb
    past tense: gimped; past participle: gimped
    1. limp; hobble.
      "she gimped around thereafter on an artificial leg"      I have thoroughly advocated googling as a way to enhance discussion.
    1 minute ago, Arete said:

    Lols 

    LOL?   Can you relocate every instance of what you have ever googled?   Can you remember the exact question or statement you ever googled?  One question can located 10s of millions of replies.  Your sense of superiority is obvious.


  9. 31 minutes ago, Sensei said:

    Questionnaires are not valid scientific method. Infected person does not know when and how has been infected, especially in the case of diseases such as HIV, which does not give immediate symptoms about infection.

    If somebody would be infected by disease which is giving symptoms in just a couple days or weeks after event, and had no further sexual intercourse between sex and moment of diagnose by doctor, and ex-sexual partner was also diagnosed to be positive - this would give quite large probability that the right source of infection has been detected.

    ...but you said HIV, not HPV, in your previous post...

     

    I think science proves the value of questionnaires but if we differ on that we'll have to disagree until one of finds and shows proof of their position.

    The topic is STIs which included HIV, HPV cancers, and many others.    

    26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    Except if you go back in the thread, you can see where people have corrected some of your misunderstandings during our open-minded discussion and presentation of (mis)information. Nothing about being open-minded suggests I need to listen to you when you're wrong and it can be shown you're wrong. Open-minded people weigh the preponderance of evidence regarding an explanation of phenomena, as Arete has stated. 

    If you don't understand what you're talking about, how gimped are you in a Google search to determine the validity of a statement?

    If people have corrected some of what they consider my misunderstandings I hope I appreciate their help.  However, right now I can't remember anyone doing that.  Perhaps you can bring forward some demonstrations? 

    I do see where one person on the first page I can't remember their name answered my question, that science has taken a scientific approach to morality, so it has not failed.  That perhaps answers my specific question, which was a question, not a statement of condemnation of science.   I repeat, I believe in the value of true science.  I do not question the Big Bang for instance because I believe in the bible, but because I believe in science which says quantum fluctuation is an alternative to BB, and I do NOT want to discuss that here, only an example of my belief in the power of science to help us understand and know.

    If an open minded person is truly open minded they might consider how they can help someone they consider wrong, by examining what that person is saying, and providing evidence that they are wrong.  Of course not all of us have that time and energy.

    26 minutes ago, Arete said:

    The CDC states that condoms are 91% effective in preventing HIV transmission via anal sex

    So im going to posit that the 50% figure was simply fabricated.

    Posit what you want.  The figure was from a study I may or may not be able to relocate.  

    Here's some CDC stuff that seems to dispute both our numbers.  Studies will vary of course.

     

     

    http://www.aidsmap.com/Consistent-condom-use-in-anal-sex-stops-70-of-HIV-infections-study-finds/page/2586976/

     

    An analysis by Dawn Smith of the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported at the 20th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI 2013) on 4 March has provided the first estimate of the efficacy of condoms in preventing HIV transmission during anal sex since 1989. It found condoms stop seven out of ten anal transmissions – the same efficacy found by the 1989 study.

    However, it also found that sometimes using condoms is not effective at preventing HIV infection, and that long-term 100% condom use is a minority behaviour: only one-in-six gay men actually managed to maintain it over the three- to four-year time frame of the analysis.

    One ongoing problem in assessing the effectiveness of different HIV prevention methods is that anal sex is under-studied. We do not have enough data on rectal viral loads and their effect on transmission, or on whether HIV treatment reduces transmission via anal sex as well as it does for vaginal sex.

    We are also unclear about to what extent condoms actually prevent HIV transmission in anal sex. This last fact may seem surprising, given that condoms have been recommended since the mid-1980s as the only effective HIV prevention method for gay men who have anal sex.

    In fact, there is only one large study in gay men, dating from 1989. In this study of 2914 gay men, HIV incidence among those who said they used condoms 100% of the time was 70% lower than in men who did not use them at all. There has been one small study in the era of antiretroviral treatment (ART), which found an efficacy of approximately 75%.

     

    Amongst all men having anal sex, men who said they used condoms 100% of the time were 70% less likely to acquire HIV than men who never used condoms.

    These are somewhat lower than efficacies computed for vaginal sex, which is in the order of 80 to 85%, and may reflect both that HIV is at least ten times more easily transmitted via anal than vaginal sex, and also that condoms may be more likely to fail during anal sex.


  10. 33 minutes ago, Sensei said:

    That's nonsense.. "Scientists" would have to order one group of infected people, to have sex with other group of not infected people, and then verify whether they have been infected or not and in what percentage (not all intercourse are ending up with infection). It's quite not doable in democratic country (such "study" would be doable only in totalitarian regime in concentration camp). Scientific method requires to have "control group" and "experimental group".

    If woman was infected already (thus had microbes in her anus and poo), placing it in the both, will just spread microbes. If that's the case, it can happen spontaneously while e.g. taking bath or during shower.

    Monogamists also have anal and oral sex.

    Lack of (or incorrect) sexual education won't prevent people from experimentation. Concentration on morality in sexual education is anti-sexual education in my humble opinion..

    Nonsense?  Science seems to have been involved in the studies .. probably statistical science based on questionaires.  Facing our mortality can be humbling, once a person has a serious illness leading to death (or not) they might be open to honesty about their lives in order to save their lives, or to help others.

    HPV 16 and 18 are totally common at the anus, that's where they choose to live, with no harm done, unless rough use opens a lesion through which they enter the body instead of residing on its surface.  This is science.  If those viruses are transferred to the cervix they become, according to science, the ONLY cause of cancer there, they don't cause cancer in the vagina where they might enter in small numbers through carelessness or very tight clothing like thongs rubbing against both openings, but in such cases other agents can cause other infections.

    I'm not advocating concentration on morality .. I'm asking that morality be scientifically examined (and it is in a large way I have discovered through this discussion) in order that intellectually inclined people may see morality as one way to avoid death.

    Yes, some but not all monogamists (and heterosexuals as I have said two or three times in this discussion) also have anal sex.  In my opinion scriptures of religions approve of certain kinds of oral sex; but there is some speculation that anal sex leads to prostate cancer when viruses like HPV enters their urethra and then into their prostate.   

    10 minutes ago, Arete said:

    Allow me to clarify - you justified why it was acceptable for you to simply make things up and dismiss evidence provided by others. When you did that, you demonstrated that nothing you have to say is worth listening to. 

    A worthwhile discussion requires a preponderance of evidence. 

    I did NO such thing.  You suggested that some people make things up as evidence.  I said those fabrications can be easily dismissed through google (for those with minds open to new knowledge that is.)  I'd be a fool to fabricate when so much evidence for so many topics of discussion is so easily available on the internet.   

    A worthwhile discussion may lead only to a valuable desire to find evidence.


  11. 13 minutes ago, Arete said:

    When your default position is “everything that contradicts my position is fake news” your position becomes dismissiable, in its entirety, with contempt. Especially in science. 

    Very often that is the case.  In science and other fields including religion 'learned' men spend many years and much money acquiring their document of education, they have ticked all the right boxes, pleased all the right people, are awarded with a good salary and sense of pride and accomplishment, any doubt that they may be wrong in any way may cause them great discomfort, and the fight or flight response kicks in , they have too much at stake emotionally and financially to run, so they MUST attack, the fortress MUST be defended against barbarians.  


  12. 15 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

    'You don't know what you're talking about' is the standard response to anyone differing, when the response should be open minded discussion and presentation of information.

    Making things up .. with google those things are easy to show as being made up.

    Yes reason and intelligence are very important, and most or all faiths will agree ("Love God with all your mind" is a commandment in the New Testament for instance.)    Statistics can prove that people do become instruments perhaps not of God's wrath but of righteous judgment in the same way murders are put behind bars.  However .. I'm not out to preach religion in this topic, but to find ways of giving people a chance at a longer life in which they can search and find morality that will save their lives.  THEN they may want to explore the origins of morality, whether it is science or that which some people call God.  It's obvious the world's religions have failed miserably.   

    You use an extreme example, killing police to protect a child, of course that is legitimate in some cases for instance where a White Supremacist authority is out to destroy Blacks, but Matin Luther King with his faith did a good job of reminding Blacks in America that violence is not the answer.  Many people, howevr, would be willing to kill 'barbarians' whose nations possess the crude oil, gold and diamonds in order to protect the fuel supply for their Cadillac (oops, some sort of glitch there perhaps, I meant to write 'child.'

    Who is at fault for the lack of publicity?   One simple example:  some moderators on discussion forums shut down the discussion as soon as it approaches the idea of right and wrong in sexual behaviour, accusing the poster of being homophobic even though the poster emphasizes anal sex is also a heterosexual practice .. or far right religious for instance.  I think science can publicize its approach to morality, but doesn't often, and that I hadn't been exposed to the large amount of scientific approach to morality is one example that science itself suppresses its involvement, perhaps FOR the reason scientists may be accused of being right wing fanatics IF they promote publicity.   I'll try to answer your last statement after a short break.

     
    Morality:  principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
    synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More
    a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
    plural noun: moralities
    "a bourgeois morality"
    • the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
      "behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"
       
      Note that religion plays no part in this definition, while definitions of right and wrong become a question.  Is 'right' something that leads to life and health, and 'wrong' leading to sickness and death?  Or is that simple nature?  Do animals know right from wrong?  If they do do their instincts for dominance overcome their instincts for right, and also with man?   What is right for one group of people may be right ONLY until that group becomes aware intellectually that their 'right' behaviour leads to death, then it becomes wrong.   It's very clear that certain sexual behaviours (promiscuity one of them) can easily lead to sickness and even death.  That is not science's fault, as science through research of causes and with statistics tries to prevent sickness and death.   

  13. 16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    Another example where lack of knowledge fools the ignorant into believing "each side of a discussion" are arguing equally. You don't know what you're talking about (sorry! but true), so you don't have the tools and knowledge necessary to critically judge the validity of both sides of an argument. Ergo, they look the same to you.

    And of course, lack of knowledge often leads one to make things up. It's almost impossible to dissuade a person who fills the gaps in their knowledge with junk they've carefully tailored to make sense (to a single person). 

     

     

    I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, but I trust morality derived from reason much more than religion. People's faith can waver, but I think a person is much more likely to be consistent if they've decided what's right and wrong intellectually rather than emotionally. I think the wisdom of compassionate cooperation and communication is a stronger argument for moral behavior than "You'll go to hell!"

    If you aren't supposed to do something because your god(s) won't like it, historically we've seen many people either lose faith or decide that they're an instrument of their god's wrath. Emotional stances are often overridden by a more emotional one (indeed, that's often the only thing that will work). Parents might decide it's OK to kill to protect their child, even if they're killing the police to avoid capture.

    'You don't know what you're talking about' is the standard response to anyone differing, when the response should be open minded discussion and presentation of information.

    Making things up .. with google those things are easy to show as being made up.

    Yes reason and intelligence are very important, and most or all faiths will agree ("Love God with all your mind" is a commandment in the New Testament for instance.)    Statistics can prove that people do become instruments perhaps not of God's wrath but of righteous judgment in the same way murders are put behind bars.  However .. I'm not out to preach religion in this topic, but to find ways of giving people a chance at a longer life in which they can search and find morality that will save their lives.  THEN they may want to explore the origins of morality, whether it is science or that which some people call God.  It's obvious the world's religions have failed miserably.   

    You use an extreme example, killing police to protect a child, of course that is legitimate in some cases for instance where a White Supremacist authority is out to destroy Blacks, but Matin Luther King with his faith did a good job of reminding Blacks in America that violence is not the answer.  Many people, howevr, would be willing to kill 'barbarians' whose nations possess the crude oil, gold and diamonds in order to protect the fuel supply for their Cadillac (oops, some sort of glitch there perhaps, I meant to write 'child.'

    1 minute ago, swansont said:

    And who is at fault for this lack of publicity? You have not established that it is scientists failing, vs scientists being censored by others (for example). Have you looked at statistics of STI occurrence when information is available, vs when it is not? It seems reasonable to expect that teen STI incidence correlates with teen pregnancy rates

     

    And that is separate from the issue of your failure to show that morality is at issue here, mostly from the absence of any clear definition of morality, and its connection to the problem.

    Who is at fault for the lack of publicity?   One simple example:  some moderators on discussion forums shut down the discussion as soon as it approaches the idea of right and wrong in sexual behaviour, accusing the poster of being homophobic even though the poster emphasizes anal sex is also a heterosexual practice .. or far right religious for instance.  I think science can publicize its approach to morality, but doesn't often, and that I hadn't been exposed to the large amount of scientific approach to morality is one example that science itself suppresses its involvement, perhaps FOR the reason scientists may be accused of being right wing fanatics IF they promote publicity.   I'll try to answer your last statement after a short break.


  14. 5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

    Because the people who advocate on seem to feel they should advocate the other.

    If you can find a group that opposes abortion, but promotes the use of condoms then you have found a group that's either irreligious or rather rare.

    According to one study at least condoms fail to prevent HIV 50% anyway.  And condoms will fail to prevent STIs if the sex organs are not used for the purpose they were intended .. people with a condom inserting into the anus then into the vagina is not going to save the woman from STI, for instance.

    4 hours ago, swansont said:

    Is it the so-called "moral authority" not letting people learn how to prevent them, and/or not giving them the means?

    Why are you hanging this on science? Do you really think that it's a lack of scientific knowledge that's the bottleneck here?

    A lack of publicity of scientific knowledge is one major factor.  If people learned the stats I posted, for instance, they would hesitate to abuse their bodies.  People would suffer far less if they learned through science that they need the HPV vaccine because they or a partner are using the anus as a sex toy (this is not homophobia lots of heterosexuals do the same thing.)  Scientific facts are abundant .. they don't get publicized.   Not giving them the means, as far as condoms for instance, they are easily available from a thousand sources, some schools give them out.  If science can demonstrate, through statistics for instance, that it is not sex itself that causes STIs, but certain sexual practices, then old fashioned morality might stand a chance for good publicity.  I was surprised at the amount of scientific literature about scientific approaches to morality.   


  15. 5 hours ago, Arete said:

    Abstinence only sexual education goes hand in hand with the pro life movement. It's virtually impossible to disentangle the two. 

    The problem with this is that abstinence only sex education doesn't reduce the rate of premarital sex. What it does instead is leads to people having sex without the knowledge of how to prevent the spread of STI's. So, it not only fails at its intended purpose, it needlessly exposes people to preventable infectious diseases. 

    In a similar vein, stricter abortion laws are not only correlated with higher abortion rates, but also an increased risk of death for women seeking illegal medical procedures. 

    Legislating morality generally backfires. Approaching people with compassion, without judgement, and trying to minimize suffering tends to lead to a positive result for all. 

    "The problem with this is that abstinence only sex education doesn't reduce the rate of premarital sex. What it does instead is leads to people having sex without the knowledge of how to prevent the spread of STI's. So, it not only fails at its intended purpose, it needlessly exposes people to preventable infectious diseases."

            Links will most often of course lead to information substantiating the statement of the link's provider.  But there WILL be other links with different information.  Each side of a discussion will view the other side's link as suspicious.  Statistical science on results of health for those different categories of morality can show the good and bad results of those categories.  Some of those results will vary also, but a general picture will result saying, 'yes, this behaviour leads most often to health and well being, this behaviour leads most often to the hospital.  

          Compassion will publish those results .. but of course those results will result in some people accusing the publishers of fearmongering and hatemongering.  


  16. 4 minutes ago, Carrock said:

    In your OP you asked rhetorical questions and now you say my post has an unstated clear purpose.

    Any response to you can be met with "I only stated unreferenced 'facts' without attribution; your response attributes false purpose and reasoning to my posts."

     

    I'll just mention one point from you.

     

    So a child brought up to be ignorant about sex knows that it's good and/or moral to search for forbidden knowledge on the internet. They also know without being told how not to become victims of internet predators.

    Almost any child has some notion of sex .. they hear what can be either soft or loud sounds in their parents'/parent's bedroom, with loud, short of breath sounds gasping and almost violent moaning perhaps the first association in the sex and violence combination so profitable for the entertainment industry and satisfying to the demented.)  Perhaps some or many older 'children' are internet predators as intent on finding easy sex as the adult aged people out for their own gratification.   What age IS a child these days with 12 year olds prostituting themselves in small towns in Canada for instance, you know, the Canada which advertises itself as an example for the world in so many virtuous ways? 

     I think you have the wrong picture of a normal 'religious' family.  Sex education is part of many religions, and in what many people call 'the moral literature' of those religions sex is honoured as a good and pleasurable thing with good purposes not limited to pregnancy.  The Song of Solomon in the bible is one example.  However, those religious texts also are clear on what they consider good and bad sex, and THAT is what some people consider error, the idea of good and bad, right and wrong that restricts their own desire for physical satisfaction at any cost.   

    The science of statistics can reveal the results of different kinds of sexual activity, and those results can be linked that to the idea of what are good and bad ideas and behaviours, right and wrong.  Education as to wearing of condoms obviously breaks down with the reality that most people of any age don't use them beyond first or second representation of caution and intelligence.  Scientific literature suggest condoms fail 50% at preventing HIV anyway.  I haven't read the results of condom use for the many other diseases.     


  17. 31 minutes ago, Strange said:

    Rocks!? On Mars? How did they think they could get away with that? They must think we are stupid!

           Stupid?  No, most people think people except themselves are just uneducated and ignorant.   Rocks would get to Mars from asteroids, meteorites, that kind of thing, kind of like the theory of how earth's water got here.   And creatures like dust dung beetles on Mars might be rolling bits of dust together into rocks, decorating their personal flat expanse of desert with Stonehenge like structures that we won't recognize until we learn their geometry.   HAHAHAAHAHA.   Five a.m. is a silly time to be on the internet, Strange, but maybe a good time to write science fiction.    


  18. 6 hours ago, Carrock said:

    As you're referring to the U.S., a major reason is the success of the religious right in inhibiting access to sex education, safe sex info, treatment for STIs, contraception and abortion.

    Maximising harm to those who do not adhere to their concept of morality is an aim of evangelicals etc.

    The purpose of your response was made clear when you included access to abortion which has nothing to do with STIs unless you consider pregnancy a disease.  Safe sex access is found in almost any Greyhound station bathroom, many bar bathrooms, many schools, every drug store, and many or most modern parents will get condoms for their children.  Sex education can be found easily on the internet by almost any 10 year old.  You credit American right wing 'television evangelicals' with far more power and purpose than they have, as they're so concerned with giving approval to wars of empire and amassing personal fortunes they really don't have enough air time to be concerned with morality.  In Canada, what is considered 'sex education' begins in Elementary school, and here it seems to increase the problem because for the past 12 years it's been in the hands of those in favour of eliminating any idea of morality, resulting in a rate of Youth HIV that for the past several years has been on track to reach 1,000%+ increase in about 8 years, with over 500 new cases a year presently.   

    7 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

    I fail to see how saying we shouldn't kill babies leads to the spread of STI's.

    This is a complete misrepresentation of the aim of evangelicals. 

    1. Not all evangelicals are the same.

    Quote

    And not all evangelicals are genuine, especially on television.

     

    2. This is not the goal of the overwhelming majority of evangelicals, let alone all of them.

              

    3. Many evangelicals don't even agree on what morality is, let alone who's adhering to it.

    From what I've seen the majority of the fight is aimed at trying to keep people from killing babies, and the idea that it's only the religious right is a flawed one. 

    And while there are people who don't want people with STIs to be treated, don't want there to be safe sex info, and who oppose sex education, I'd say it's a completely different category then what the majority of them are fighting over, like abortion.

    It reminds me of a joke where a question asks "Have you ever convicted of a murder, been convicted of a hit and run, been convicted of a rape, or been convicted of a parking ticket?"

    One thing in the category, yes, the majority of people have done. Doesn't mean that all of those things are done equally. 

    Abortion is where the vast majority of the fight is, and limiting access to Abortions is not causing the spread of STI's, it's not related.

             Not related at all, except as moral issues.  

    I'd imagine the lack of people practicing safe sex. 

              And almost no one does.

    Morality cannot be defined scientifically.

    No. Science deals with things you can measure. Morality can't be measured.

             Perhaps morality can be measured in the results from discontinuing the idea of morality.

    People haven't abandoned "morality". They've changed their opinion of what it is.

    Rape is still considered immoral.

    Murder is still considered immoral.

             Then why is there so much of it, on personal levels, and on national levels with war?

    Stealing is still considered immoral. Etc.

             Then why is there so much educated, white collar crime?

          This is my first time using the quote function, so if my response is messed up, it's messed up.  Here I go .. push the submit reply.


  19. 23 minutes ago, Strange said:

    No. Just expressing scepticism at armadillos on Mars

    They would be quite a surprise to most people that's for sure.  NASA identified them as rocks.  I wasn't surprised at seeing them at the time, as I'd read a lot of good science fiction, Jules Verne for instance,  I guess I was somewhat impressed at life's capability and the seeming power of chance to defy all odds, and everything I've learned since, including possibility of silicon life and life without oxygen, tells me why I wasn't surprised.   


  20. 25 minutes ago, iNow said:

    STDs are spread via sex. It’s right there in the name. You’re welcome.

    Morality can be approached scientifically, specifically by seeking the maximum good for the highest number of sentient beings.

    It’s not easy, but at least offers a foundation.

    Harris does interesting writing on this. 

    I got a chuckle for sure, iNow.  Thanks also for the rest of the post.


  21. 2 minutes ago, koti said:

     

    Sir, I am being polite and unassuming and I'm typing this very quietly. You have my utter respect and after careful consideration I have concluded you should do what I have mentioned above.

    Never mind that vaccines are the most rigorously tested drugs of all medical drugs out there, never mind that the aluminum concern was addressed in literally thousands of papers by medical scientists all over the world with the exact same outcome - its not a problem. Never mind that ~500 million dosages of the MMR vaccine alone have been delivered all over the planet with astonishing positive results and very few problematic cases (all drugs have side effects) 

    I've done my best for you.   


  22. 2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    The problem is that the collective societal memory of the scourge that these diseases were is slowly being forgotten. Not many people have direct memories of the problems and extent of these diseases. To many  .people below a certain age, the purpose of vaccines is just an abstract concept for which one can choose to have or not with minimal consequences. The vaccination programs have become victims of their own success. I am reminded of the saying "Lest we forget"... history will repeat  itself.

    There were many causes for the spread of those diseases., including exhaustion through adult overwork and children chained to factory machines.  The profit value of keeping a trained employee rested and healthy became a part of business.  Sanitation improved, knowledge of contractibility ( if that is a legitimate word,) nutrition, home heating, standards of living including warm clothing and footwear that kept feet dry and warm, warm schools, etc.  The human body can probably fight off any disease given a chance.  The plagues were good examples, the filthy densely populated cities were hit hard, the rural areas far less so with the wealthy from the city fleeing to the villages.  


  23. 1 minute ago, koti said:

    But why? It's 100% natural.

    But you're not .. you've been transformed into a image of a 'real man' who needs to be vulgar to be a 'real man.'  That transformation happened slowly of course, and as a natural boy you resisted it because you knew it to be fake and obscene.  Nevertheless, once you grew to enjoy the feeling of power it gave you over others you allowed it to grow, diminishing the natural man who cares about others, who needs acceptance by others, and pushing yourself ever deeper into a pit from which you can't seem to escape.


  24. 1 minute ago, koti said:

    If I tell you politely, quietly and unassumingly to eat your own excrements becasue it's actually very healthy and most of all 100% natural - would you consider? 
     

    I would consider you a vulgar and unthinking person incapable of discussing any topic intelligently unless you had a radical transformation of your morality and intellect, so that while you may have valuable information I couldn't trust anything you said.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.