Ales

Are you serious? I do not inspect if the data you provide are correct. I hope it is per some fixed number of women. It can be caused by better work of police or by the change of laws. Realize also that in a society which is a "polzeistat" the criminality is lowest. In a christian state where woman is not allowed to leave the house of her husband, she cannot commit certain crimes (Trident Catechism), similarly in a state where guns are not allowed and everyone is constantly controlled, there will probably be less number of murders. Even if your argument were correct your next argument is fallacy "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" But it is not correct. Suppose it was possible to determine the number of women who were sexually abused as children in the year 1970 and 1999 and in both cases it was 60%. First question is: If there is such a reliable method of obtaining these data, why not to use it also for all the women? (If this is properly done, the number of sexual abuses seems to increase, but it was shown that the cause of this is that children are no more afraid of their parents and of the condemnation of the society and they reveal the truth, both is due to the decline of christianity.) The increase from 6000 to 12000 is an increase by 100%, similarly the increase from 6000 to 79 000 is an increase by 1217% not 1317%. Imagine in a society there is 1 000 000 women, 10% of which have been sexually abused as children, i.e. 100 000. In prison there are 6000 women, out of which 3600 were sexually abused as children. After 29 years the total number of women is the same, the number of sexually abused women decreases to 80 000. The number of women in prison is now 79 000 out of which 47400 were sexually abused. Do you see why your argument is worthless?

Here the pedophiliac must give a consent, I believe in Denmark it is the same. Nevertheless, the teaching of rcc is to a great degree based on a man, who castrated himself-Origrnes, many others also castrated themselves, and they were praised for it, such seriously crippled men were present in the Vatican choir even around 1910 and recent historians speak also about 1950, it was only for the sake of high boy-like voice that these people were mutilated.

If it is what I think it is, do not be lazy and do something with any effect. But such an advice is usually useless in the cases of compulsive neurosis, which is the psychoanalytical definition of religion.

dk

dk:- If US Department of Justice fudges the numbers then sex education is the least of this countries worries.
dk: The US constitution was first interpreted as a secular document around 1950, so its fair to say the US was a Christian nation until 1950. If Christian women have been forbidden to leave the house its news to me.
dk: I have no idea what argument you’re talking about.
dk: The hard facts are that the number of women in prison went from 6,000 (1970) to 79,000(1999), an increase of over 1,300%. The USDOJ says 60% of the women in prison were sexually abused as children. In 1970 the nuclear family had a divorce rate under 7%. I say this is good evidence that the demise of the nuclear family has been detrimental to women, especially women who live on the fringes of society in poor inner city urban areas.
dk: Why not to use it also for all the women? Because all women aren’t in prison. By the USDOJ asserted a causal affect not me.

Quote:

Women's pathways to crime are distinctly different than men's. Most often they are rooted in past traumas associated with family and intimate violence.

I’m not a statistician for the USDOJ, but I’ve been told the USDOJ assert a causal affect only where warranted by a rigid processes, reproduced, and from independent sources. It is my observation that academic social researchers use considerably lower standards.
dk: 1217% or 1317%, you crack me up. Here’s a lesson no charge.
dk: You can’t make numbers up. If there are
50,000 women in prison then (.6)(50,000) = x = 30,000 were sexually assaulted as women.
30,000 women in prison then (.6)(30,000) = x = 18,000 were sexually assaulted as women.
25,000 women in prison then (.6)(25,000) = x = 15,000 were sexually assaulted as women.
See how that works, you need read up some on basic algebra.
dk: I have no idea what you’re talking about. Blaming the RCC for the failures of secular social sciences is absurd.
dk: Radical Empiricists blame the failures of psychoanalytical theories on Christianity, without empirical evidence what else can they do.

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Vorkosigan

dk: The US constitution was first interpreted as a secular document around 1950, so its fair to say the US was a Christian nation until 1950. If Christian women have been forbidden to leave the house its news to me.

Where did you get this nonsense? The US has always been a secular state; the first cases to reach the Supreme Court on the issue were quite early. The Treaty of Tripoli (1796) written a couple of hundred years ago, confirms the US was not in any sense founded on any religion. In Reynolds v US (1878) the Supreme Court cited Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" quote in its conclusions. Cases on the religion clause go back to 1799.

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/toc.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/toc.htm</a> contains some excellent background material, lists of cases, and responses to distortions from the Christian Right on this matter.

The Constitution does not mention god, and the where it is referred to in the Dec. of Independence it is the Deistic god of nature, and not the Canaanite Sky god Ya/Yahweh/Yao whom Christians worship that is meant.

Further, in the Constitution, secularism is implicit in the forbidding of a religious test for office.

I’m not a statistician for the USDOJ, but I’ve been told the USDOJ assert a causal affect only where warranted by a rigid processes, reproduced, and from independent sources. It is my observation that academic social researchers use considerably lower standards.

I don't know what USDOJ you know of, but in the one in the US on my planet, the researchers at the DOJ have generally gone through some kind of academic program and standards of research vary according to funding and politics. Sometimes they are excellent, sometimes not. Most academic work, because it must satisfy standards, including peer review and publication, is to a high standard, and certainly comparable to, if not exceeding, government standards.

Michael

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

lpetrich

And all these big villains drive black helicopters, right? dk has presented absolutely zero evidence that these supposed villains have declared war against that supposed great unified entity, "the family".

And judging from his odd conspiracy theories, dk seems as if he has been living in a grove of birch trees for too long. To be specific, John Birch trees

Ales

I am sure that if you diligently study the documents of II, you will find many things that will be "news" for you. I quote by hart from the Trident Catechism: "...the wife is obliged to stay in the house of her husband, she can leave this house in urgent cases only, and that only with the consent of her husband." It looks like taliban, doesn't it?


You say that in 1970 it was possible to determine with reliable precision that 60% of women who were in prison in 1979 were sexually abused as children. You say that in 1999 it was possible to determine with reliable precision that 60% of women who were in prison in 1999 were sexually abused as children. It seems therefore that there is a method how to determine with reliable precision how many percent of women were sexually abused as children at any time in the sample of women who are in prison. My question was: If there is such a reliable method, why not to use this method to the general population of women, and thereby determine with reliable precision how many percent of women in general were sexually abused as children? Then you would not need to do this argument:

which is, as I have shown to you and will try to explain again in what follows, wrong. Is it because respondents who are in prison are more reliable than women who are not?

It is most probably matter of convention or language only. If I have a real x and I say that x has increased by p% to a real number y, I mean by this that the increment, i.e. how much I have to add to x, to obtain y, is p% of x. Your definition is different. You say, that x increased to a value y, which is equal to p% of x. It is obvious that the difference of p in both definitions, respectively, is constantly 100% (In our case 1317%-1217%).


Why is this argument

wrong? I will show by means of a simple example that your argument is valid only under special conditions. Suppose p% of women who had been born around 1930 and who had been abused as children, were in 1970, when they were about 40 (I suppose this is the average age of women who were imprisoned in 1970), in prison. It means that p% of the women who had been sexually abused as children around 1930 were in prison in 1970. Suppose it was found, that this number constitutes 60% of all the women who were in prison in 1970. I.e. in our case we would obtain that 3600*100/p girls were sexually abused around 1930. Suppose q% of women who had been born around 1959 and who had been abused as children, were in 1999, when they were about 40 (I suppose this is the average age of women who were imprisoned in 1999), in prison. Suppose it was found, that this number constitutes 60% of all the women who were in prison in 1999. I.e. in our case we would obtain that 47400*100/q girls were sexually abused around 1959. We can deduce what is the relation between the number of sexually abused girls in 1930 and 1959, under these special conditions, only if we know the relation between p and q, your argument would work only if q/p&lt;79/6. In the case q/p&gt;79/6, we can in fact infer from your data, that the number of girls who are sexually abused in fact decreases as I illustrated last time:

Ales: Imagine in a society there is 1 000 000 women, 10% of which have been sexually abused as children, i.e. 100 000. In prison there are 6000 women, out of which 3600 were sexually abused as children. After 29 years the total number of women is the same, the number of sexually abused women decreases to 80 000. The number of women in prison is now 79 000 out of which 47400 were sexually abused.
You can of course suppose p~q, and make your argument, but you didn't show any argument for this. I believe that guesses at p and q and also guesses at the number of sexually abused children are available in USA, as they are in Czech Rep. and all your antics is useless.

It seems that even the brain transplation would not help you.

You blamed the doctors, who recommend castration of sexually deviant patients, when the standard cure, which really is sophisticated, is not efficient. I replied that castration was highly praised for in rcc until the 13th century, and until 20th century in the Vatican choir there were castrates, boys were castrated as children, without their consent, i.e. they were substantially more damaged than deviants, who are castrated as adults, and it was not for the sake of preventing the deviant killed somebody, it was only because castrates had sweet voices.

It is interesting to note, that there are catholic priests in Germany, who use psychoanalysis. E.g. in 1982 Drewermann on these grounds constructed conditions under which he condoned abortion. But it was Freud, who noticed the similarity between the rites of patients with compulsive neurosis and the religious rites of believers. It seemed to me that you wanted to pray. I believe, that such an activity or a similar one can only help someone to realize or emphasize for himself what his motives are, so far no supernatural effect of any pray was proved. At the same time I realized, that no believer is able to realize, that his pray will have no effect, but he will not be able to resist, and eventually will (repeatedly) pray. Then I recalled this observation of Freud, describes this phenomenon well.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Ales ]</p>

dk

dk: The USA has saturated MSM communities with the safe sex message, and since HAART treatment became available its back to square one. Worse a whole new generation of MSM protégés are picking up the torch (risky sexual behaviors).
dk: A comparison of European nations to the USA is bogus. The USA is a diverse nation of immigrants from around the world, whereas European nations are constructed from a uniform culture composed of a few ethnics.
dk: Hey, the US has put a lot of effort into fighting STDs. Sadly, Gonorrhea has become drug resistant, and Chlamydia is an epidemic. The most common STD is probably herpes,incurable, but not reported, there are estimated 24mil people infected in the US, and is not reported to CDC by states. HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer in women and is unreported, incurable, with a 1,000,000 new cases each year. I don’t know what to tell you buddy except condoms are no protection against HPV or herpies. MDR strains of Gonorrhea account for the increase. My 85% number is still looking real good.
----------
dk: Statisticians call the Gaussian probability distribution the Normal Distribution; social scientists call it the Bell Curve. Although it makes some assumptions it is a good approximation as proven by the central limit theorem. The central limit theorem states that any distribution with a finite mean and variance tends to a Gaussian distribution.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

dk

dk: Really,,,
As any fool can see secularism in the modern political sense wasn’t founded until 1850s. I didn’t say the Constitution was a religious document as you imply, merely that it wasn’t interpreted as a secular document until the Mid 20th Century.
dk: The defining phrase is “The Wall of Separation between Church and State”, and wasn’t used to interpret the Constitution until <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=330&page=1#1" target="_blank"> U.S. Supreme Court ;EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) </a> and <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=333&page=203" target="_blank"> U.S. Supreme Court ; MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION , 333 U.S. 203 (1948)</a> . I don’t care what the Christian Right or Agnostic Left says, this was the first time Jefferson’s “figure of speech” was used by the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution of the US as a purely secular document.
dk: The US Constitution does not mention Public Schools iether.
dk: The ideology of secularism was founded about 1850 by George Jacob Holyoake. You’re getting the cart before the horse.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

dk

I don’t believe I mentioned villains or conspiracy theories, clearly the crisis of US public education and the nuclear family are both victims of unreliable doctrines. Let me think, our Secular School system was the Crown Jewel of the 1960s Great Society. In 2000 the chicks have come home to roost.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

lpetrich

First off, dk, what is that great unified entity (yes, a single entity), "THE family"???

Also, public schools are much older than the 1960's; there wasn't some utopia of Christian Madrassas just before then.

And here are some examples of what I consider real anti-family sentiments:

Matthew 8:21-22, Luke 9:59-62 -- one must leave one's dead relatives behind.

Matthew 10:21, Matthew 10:35-37, Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29, Luke 12:53, Luke 14:26, Luke 20:35 -- families either will be, or ought to be broken up; one must desert one's family for Jesus Christ.

Matthew 12:47-49, Mark 3:31-34, Luke 2:43-49, Luke 8:20-21, John 2:4 -- examples of Jesus Christ showing disrespect for his own family.

Yes, this is Jesus Christ himself speaking, at least according to his biographers. So dk must therefore conclude that Jesus Christ is one of the biggest enemies of "THE family" that there ever was.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Vorkosigan

dk: The ideology of secularism was founded about 1850 by George Jacob Holyoake. You’re getting the cart before the horse.

The word "secularism" may date from 1850, but the US Constitution's secular status was established long before that. As Madison wrote:
"Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion and goverment will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

dk: The defining phrase is “The Wall of Separation between Church and State”, and wasn’t used to interpret the Constitution until U.S. Supreme Court ;EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) and U.S. Supreme Court ; MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION , 333 U.S. 203 (1948) . I don’t care what the Christian Right or Agnostic Left says, this was the first time Jefferson’s “figure of speech” was used by the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution of the US as a purely secular document.

Well, since Jefferson used it to interpret the relationship between Church and State in 1802, you have no case. Since it was used by the Supreme Court first in 1878, you have no case. Here is Chief Justice Waite's opinion on the matter:

Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1878 cited Jefferson's 1802 letter and used that phrase "wall of separation." That's in 1878. A long time before 1950.

Of course, I noticed you ignored the Treat of Tripoli (1796), which bluntly states that the US government is not in any sense founded on religion.

Clearly the Constitution was interpreted as a secular document from the earliest days of the Republic. It's irrelevant what you "care," the quotes are there.

Michael