Mad Kally

No shit. Koy rules!

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, that pretty much seals the coffin on any claims of Meta's scholarship.

Bad form, sir. Bad form.

cricket

I agree.

I must have him!

cricket

NOoooo; not *him*!

!!!

Koyaanisqatsi

Please, you're embarrassing me. The real kudoes go to Hezekiah for hammering the nails home. Well done, sir.

Shoddy scholarship backed by overt lies regarding biased sources=Metacrock.

Finally his pseudonym makes sense!

Metacrock

"Deconstruct" Hu? Is that in a Derridian sense? I'm sure you don't know. You shouldn't try to use phrases when you don't know how to use them. But before we get into this let's just keep in mind now that you have presented no evidence at all. So you have no argument. Any documentation I have given that stands at the end of this is weighed agsint none at all for your bold faced assertions.

Meta =>Considering the fac that you haven't even named a single study or even quoted a single authority that doesn't matter. Since you weren't in debate I guess you don't know how evidence works. So here's a little run down; you have to quote qualified authoritative sources which are published and availbe to everyone. Then there's a heirarchy; the study itself of course is the best, but going down the rung to just an opinon in a newspaper by an expert, any documentation is better than none at all which is all you've got.

Note: You are just going by the Rail stuff so you haven't even touched the Maslow evidence.


Meta =>Since the term "scholarship" to you is just a meaningless empty word, the meaning of which you have no clue, that's not even an insult. It's just a nonsense statement.


That was a summary by three highly qualified sources, including one from a major university,(Princeton, Vanderbuilt--highly qualified) summarizing 400 studies that show that religion is postive in terms of juvinle delquency.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/coh_spr.htm

Cities on a Hill News Letter Spring 1999


Social Scientists Agree: Religious Belief Reduces Crime
Summary of the First Panel DiscussionPanelists for this important discussion included social scientists Dr. John DiIulio, professor of politics and urban affairs at Princeton University; David Larson, M.D., President of the National Institute for Healthcare Research; Dr. Byron Johnson, Director of the Center for Crime and Justice Policy at Vanderbilt University; and Gary Walker, President of Public/Private Ventures.  The panel focused on new research, confirming the positive effects that religiosity has on turning around the lives of youth at risk.
From left to right: Midge Decter, John DiIulio, David Larson, Byron Johnson and Gary Walker.

Dr. Larson laid the foundation for the discussion by summarizing the findings of 400 studies on juvenile delinquency, conducted during the past two decades.  He believes that although more research is needed, we can say without a doubt that religion makes a positive contribution.  His conclusion: “The better we study religion, the more we find it makes a difference.”Previewing his own impressive research, Dr. Johnson agreed.  He has concluded that church attendance reduces delinquency among boys even when controlling for a number of other factors including age, family structure, family size, and welfare status.  His findings held equally valid for young men of all races and ethnicities. Gary Walker has spent 25 years designing, developing and evaluating many of the nation’s largest public and philanthropic initiatives for at-risk youth.  His experience tells him that faith-based programs are vitally important for two reasons.  First, government programs seldom have any lasting positive effect.  While the government might be able to design programs that occupy time, these programs, in the long-term, rarely succeed in bringing about the behaviorial changes needed to turn kids away from crime.Second, faith-based programs are rooted in building strong adult-youth relationships; and less concerned with training, schooling, and providing services, which don’t have the same direct impact on individual behavior.  Successful mentoring, Walker added, requires a real commitment from the adults involved – and a willingess to be blunt.  The message of effective mentors is simple.  “You need to change your life, I’m here to help you do it, or you need to be put away, away from the community.”  Government, and even secular philanthropic programs, can’t impart this kind of straight talk.Walker is working on a pilot project with Dr. DiIulio and Rev. Eugene Rivers to implement a faith-based mentoring system in 10 cities around the country.  But the project faces some daunting challenges, as Mr. Walker sees it.  Can faith-based mentoring, which usually works on a small-scale, informal basis, be successfully bureaucratized, even by private organizations?  And can faith-based mentoring overcome resistance from government and philanthropic funders in order to grow and thrive?

Now, your dislike of those studies doesn't make them go away. Because there are 400 of them I obviously can't list all their specs here and now, so its general summary quote overviewing the material. But that documents the existence of the material. It is now your burden to find some kind of fualt with the studies on a case by case basis. You can't just slough that off on the general premise that you don't like the over all direction of the data.

You are unarmed in this I promise you. I was a college debater for four years and we lived and died by our study methology defense. I dont' think you even understand what methodology is.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Undeserved. You're far too gracious; a gentleman and a scholar, one might say. And fucking hilarious, to boot. I honestly don't know where you find the patience to compose such particularized dissections. They are always most entertaining.

Metacrock's scholarship is impeccable. Unfortunately, it's also conspicuously and egregiously half-assed. Sadly, he only presents the "evidence" that suits his questionable presuppositions, in this case, proceeding from highly and demonstrably biased sources.

I find it hard to believe, especially in view of Metacrock's obnoxiously stated obeisance to academia, that this sort of one-sided crap would receive anything better than a 'C' from any self-respecting professor.

[Edited for spelling; irony of editing for spelling noted.]

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Meta--

There's absolutely no need to provide counter-evidence, my hopelessly misguided friend, when your own evidence doesn't support your contentions!

This isn't a game of who has the most quotes wins, this is about whether or not the evidence you provided qualitatively supports your counter-argument. Demonstrating as I did that nothing you presented in that post bears any relevance at all to my OP is all that is required of me.

Why would I need to provide counter-evidence against your evidence once demonstrated that you have, in fact, no relevant evidence to provide? What counter-evidence would you suggest I provide? Someone stating, "Nothing Meta presented bears any relevancy to the question in Koy's OP?"

Your scholarship speaks for itself, Meta. Don't whine and moan to us when it's pointed out to you in stark black-and-white.

Oh, and BTW, I was a two-time National qualifier for Cross-Ex and Lincoln Douglas debate, finishing 32nd in the nation for Cross-Ex. I'm well versed in the burdens of proof and the rules and regulations of debate, which is why it was so painfully easy to destroy your credibility.

(edited to include BTW - Koy)

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

hezekiah jones

rofl!

Koyaanisqatsi

It's my burden to do your research for you? Bull caca.

A general summary from an anonymous webmaster on a biased site regarding how to make ghetto kids moral, spiritually whole ghetto kids, that tells us nothing about the conclusion of those studies other than, and I quote, "The better we study religion, the more we find it makes a difference?"

Is this what you're trying to pass off as legitimate qualitative evidence in support of your counter-argument that somehow requires that I provide counter-evidence to defeat it? You must have lost many, many rounds, my friend.

Many, many rounds.

Yes, you're absolutely right. That claims that there are 400 studies out there. It surely does.

At the risk of stating the obvious, are you out of your friggin head? I have absolutely no burden whatsoever to do your research for you. None.

And you call yourself a debater? Turn in your flowpad.

Well, it's a good thing then that I didn't and instead demonstrated conclusively why it was shoddy and irrelevant scholarship with no bearing on my contention.

Give it a rest, Meta. You're just digging a deeper grave.