Here's some stats on teen abortion rates, it's convenient because this is also based on rate per 1,000 teens, so it's comparable to the graph I posted earlier on Teen Pregnancy rates. Here's the chart: http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/sites...7_fig1.jpg and here's the site: http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/175
The site states:

Quote:Government estimates indicate that teen abortion rates increased during the 1970s, stabilized during the 1980s at around 43 per 1,000 females ages 15 to 19, then decreased steadily to about 18 per 1,000 by 2008. Declines have been greatest for older teens, but all age groups have followed similar patterns. (Figure 2)

Note, Figure 2, is the first link.
So… Teen pregnancy rate in 2008 = 41.5 per 1,000
Teen abortion rate in 2008 = 18 per 1,000
And just by looking at the graph, one can plainly see that teen abortion rates have declined significantly since the 1980's. I don't think your theory that all these teens are having abortions holds water, GC.

(April 16, 2013 at 9:40 am)thesummerqueen Wrote:

(April 16, 2013 at 9:26 am)whateverist Wrote: As you say there is so much information coming from so many places that it can really be overwhelming.

One thing that irritates the shit out of me is that schools do not include classes on how to actually sort through information and tell the good from the bad - especially now when we have access to most of human knowledge via the internet. Critical thinking skills are more important than ever.

Could not agree more. Education shouldn't be about packing in maximal info or competing to get your conclusions accepted. It should be about preparing young people to sort for themselves. Perhaps values need to be taught too but I've never been comfortable with that. We all sort of exhibit what we value every moment. That's enough for me.

That is why I like teaching maths. Making sense in math is so much simpler than in other areas, more black and white. But in the process you develop some idea for what follows from what and what is a valid conclusion. Math is the gold standard and should encourage humility toward certainty in most other areas.

(April 15, 2013 at 11:14 pm)Godschild Wrote: You are seriously one sick person, the Christians did not commit the crimes, the law was the law and those who did not like it broke it. My father lived during those years, I have first hand knowledge of the times. Because he saw what happened during the twenties, he made a statement to me before he died. He said soon there will be an event similar to the great depression, I asked him how he could know that, his answer, nothings changed man's doing the same thing now that lead to the disaster of '29.' His take, money corrupts and can corrupt completely.

No, the Christians did not commit the crimes, they are simply responsible for creating an environment ripe for organized criminal activity by attempting to force the entire nation to conform to Christian behavioral standards, and that is just as bad. It was a bad law inspired by people whose religious fervor drowned out what should have been common sense.

(April 15, 2013 at 11:14 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(April 15, 2013 at 10:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: Bud, take off your nostalgia glasses and actually look at the world; for example, I don't know about where you are, but where I am, those girls who got pregnant and left school to have their baby sometimes had those kids forcibly adopted without their consent. And I'm being very charitable and avoiding the misogynistic "embarrassment to her family" line, which is objectively just crap spackle.

Every generation is absolutely sure that things were better in theirs, but even if we were to take your claim as true, it only goes back a certain length of time; once we get back to the point of theocratic violence- otherwise known as maximum god- things start to get worse.

Boston, today you idiot.

Are you... are you seriously calling me an idiot for not taking into account an event that happened after I wrote my post?

Besides, if you're going to take a single event and then generalize that across the entire world, then today I performed some charitable actions, and therefore the world is infinitely better than it was in the past. Do you see how fucking dumb that sounds?

Boy, I'd hate to be the guy who made that argument in all seriousness!

Oh, wait...

Not to derail... er, something. But I've yet to see good evidence that "teaching critical thinking" works. I can't say that I've looked incredibly hard, but I've yet to see strong evidence for the proposition. And if someone is suggesting it either solely because people claim it is helpful or "it sounds reasonable" that it would be useful, how is that not also a failure of critical thinking? Anyway, one of my peculiar concerns. People argue for teaching critical thinking (or the similarly oriented teaching how to think about values) but seldom cite any evidence of its effectiveness. I think simply teaching basic study skills to students from a young age would have a lot more effect than "critical thinking" classes.

(April 16, 2013 at 12:47 pm)apophenia Wrote:


Not to derail... er, something. But I've yet to see good evidence that "teaching critical thinking" works.

In my personal experience, it is not the teaching of the tenants of critical thinking that shaped my view of epistomology. Rather it is a wide range interest in things that actually demonstratably works that led me to the following pattern:

1. Most things (gadgets, techniques, and methods) that both demonstratably works well and worked by design came to be so through application of critical thinking. Non-critical thinking without any subconscious guidance from critical thinking did not present any evidence of being able to arrive at any demonstrateble working solution at all, except through chance.

2. Such things that does work well and arguably did not come about as result of critical thinking did not present the appearence of being in principle unattainable through critical thinking.

3. Non-critical thinking modes not only has poor chances of "working", but of the many such modes that there are, there is no evidence any is better, such as better might be, than any others, unless some non-critical thinking modes is in fact aided and abetted by some partial critical thinking.

So in so far as any non-critical thinking method might be better than pure junk, it only attained its elevated status, such as it is, through adulteration with critical thinking.

(April 16, 2013 at 1:52 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(April 16, 2013 at 12:47 pm)apophenia Wrote: Not to derail... er, something. But I've yet to see good evidence that "teaching critical thinking" works.

In my personal experience, it is not the teaching of the tenants of critical thinking that shaped my view of epistomology. Rather it is a wide range interest in things that actually demonstratably works that led me to the following pattern:

1. Most things (gadgets, techniques, and methods) that both demonstratably works well and worked by design came to be so through application of critical thinking. Non-critical thinking without any subconscious guidance from critical thinking did not present any evidence of being able to arrive at any demonstrateble working solution at all, except through chance.

2. Such things that does work well and arguably did not come about as result of critical thinking did not present the appearence of being in principle unattainable through critical thinking.

3. Non-critical thinking modes not only has poor chances of "working", but of the many such modes that there are, there is no evidence any is better, such as better might be, than any others, unless some non-critical thinking modes is in fact aided and abetted by some partial critical thinking.

So in so far as any non-critical thinking method might be better than pure junk, it only attained its elevated status, such as it is, through adulteration with critical thinking.

Fascinating, irrelevant, and arguably wrong. Did you have anything at all to say in response to what I actually wrote?

(April 11, 2013 at 1:17 am)Minimalist Wrote: Any fucking preacher who speaks out about political issues should instantly lose his tax exempt status and church property should go on the local property tax roles.

As long as you include "minority liberation" preachers like Albright and Jackson, I agree. But they don't get included in the strict separationist critiques for some reason.

(April 16, 2013 at 10:04 am)festive1 Wrote: Here's some stats on teen abortion rates, it's convenient because this is also based on rate per 1,000 teens, so it's comparable to the graph I posted earlier on Teen Pregnancy rates. Here's the chart: http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/sites...7_fig1.jpg and here's the site: http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/175
The site states:

Quote:Government estimates indicate that teen abortion rates increased during the 1970s, stabilized during the 1980s at around 43 per 1,000 females ages 15 to 19, then decreased steadily to about 18 per 1,000 by 2008. Declines have been greatest for older teens, but all age groups have followed similar patterns. (Figure 2)

Note, Figure 2, is the first link.
So… Teen pregnancy rate in 2008 = 41.5 per 1,000
Teen abortion rate in 2008 = 18 per 1,000
And just by looking at the graph, one can plainly see that teen abortion rates have declined significantly since the 1980's. I don't think your theory that all these teens are having abortions holds water, GC.

I did not say all teens were having abortions, but the stats you give are right at 45% of the pregnancies are aborted, that is a significant amount, many murders to reduces the number of babies born to teens. Yes birth control prior to sex is preferable to murder, but the fact is murder is still unacceptable.
As for the crime rate I should have looked closer, the total crime rate jumped in 1964, one year after God was pushed out of public schools. Going to summers site one can click on crimes per farther down the page. The total crime rate did not diminish until law enforcement was greatly increased and even with that the crime rate in 2008 was many times higher than 1964, all this is from the same info source. Better than jumping back and forth.

---

(April 16, 2013 at 10:41 am)Ryantology Wrote:

(April 15, 2013 at 11:14 pm)Godschild Wrote: You are seriously one sick person, the Christians did not commit the crimes, the law was the law and those who did not like it broke it. My father lived during those years, I have first hand knowledge of the times. Because he saw what happened during the twenties, he made a statement to me before he died. He said soon there will be an event similar to the great depression, I asked him how he could know that, his answer, nothings changed man's doing the same thing now that lead to the disaster of '29.' His take, money corrupts and can corrupt completely.

No, the Christians did not commit the crimes, they are simply responsible for creating an environment ripe for organized criminal activity by attempting to force the entire nation to conform to Christian behavioral standards, and that is just as bad. It was a bad law inspired by people whose religious fervor drowned out what should have been common sense.

Dude are you serious, drinking was out of control in many parts of the country, women were tired of being beaten by their drunk husbands and boyfriends. People were tired of the violent crime committed by drunks. Families were being neglected by the then sole bread winner. The many, many irresponsible drunks were the reason people wanted things to change. I agree that the change was to drastic and more sensible minds should have prevailed, emotion can run high and bad decisions are made. The same will happen if gun laws are changed while the emotions of the country run high, time and sensibility make better laws.

---

(April 16, 2013 at 11:38 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 15, 2013 at 11:14 pm)Godschild Wrote: Boston, today you idiot.

Are you... are you seriously calling me an idiot for not taking into account an event that happened after I wrote my post?

Besides, if you're going to take a single event and then generalize that across the entire world, then today I performed some charitable actions, and therefore the world is infinitely better than it was in the past. Do you see how fucking dumb that sounds?

Boy, I'd hate to be the guy who made that argument in all seriousness!

Oh, wait...

You guys want to blame today's Christians for wars that happened several hundred to over a thousand years ago, we had nothing to do with them and most we disagree with and have given valid reasons why they were not of God, but crazy zealous men who desired power over a relationship with Christ. Yet you continue to do it. I read your post after the bombing and assumed, sorry.

(April 15, 2013 at 11:14 pm)Godschild Wrote: Really, you must have failed U.S. History.

Did very well, thank you. But I have to wonder how you did, being that you seem to be living in complete ignorance of the fact that religion is either directly or indirectly responsible for many of history's worst attrocities.

The crusades, the inquisition, witch hunts and executions, slavery, attempts at genocide and ethnic cleansing.

As for US history specifically?

Ever heard of the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

How about the Salem Witch Trials?

How many slaves lost their lives while Christians justified slavery in the name of the Bible?

Oh, and let's not forget the worst attrocitie ever committed on what is now American soil: attempts at genocide at the entire Native American population by Christians. The casualities of which number so great that, to this day, they cannot accurately be estimated.

As I said, religion has never brought about peace or quality of life. It's only brought about tyranny, suffering, and death.

On more than one occasion, Hitler mentioned Jesus Christ as a justification for his attempts to exterminate the Jewish people.

Is there really any question as to the harmful effect and potential religion has on human decency and life?

You're on the wrong side of this argument, and you are not alone.