The Hazards of Belief

cowboyBuilder

robindch wrote: »

Not if you stick rigidly to A+A guidelines outside A+A - in trying as much as possible to criticize the idea or the act only and not the person. The distinction can seem jesuitical up against some passionate or clueless person, but it's still one worth bearing in mind.

Sorry I meant in modern society ..

robindch

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Sorry I meant in modern society ..

Well, even outside A+A's hallowed walls - it's worth a shot and when one's called out on it, just insist that criticism of the idea is always good, while criticism of the person is not.

robindch

In 2011, Calgary's city councillors voted to remove flouride from the city water supply. Edmonton kept its in place. Now, the science comparing the two cities directly, is rolling in and it's not looking good for Calgary.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/tooth-decay-calgary-fluoride-water-1.3450616
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdoe.12215/abstract

The Science wrote:

We observed, across the full sample, an increase in primary tooth decay (mean defs – all surfaces and smooth surfaces) in both cities, but the magnitude of the increase was greater in Calgary (F-cessation) than in Edmonton (F-continued). For permanent tooth decay, when focusing on smooth surfaces among those affected (those with DMFS>0), we observed a non-significant trend towards an increase in Calgary (F-cessation) that was not apparent in Edmonton (F-continued).

looksee

robindch wrote: »

Well, even outside A+A's hallowed walls - it's worth a shot and when one's called out on it, just insist that criticism of the idea is always good, while criticism of the person is not.

I can totally see why you might be confused Cowboy

Absolam

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The last few pages are a prime example of the poison that is cultural relativism/marxism. "Child rape is ok when a minority does it, cease with your white hetero-patriarchal, colonial laws and mindset".

And the fact that the Danish authorities haven't even offered the possibility that child rape (or any rape) even might be occurring as justification for their actions has managed to remain entirely absent from your analysis of what you perceive as occurring.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

In 2011, Calgary's city councillors voted to remove flouride from the city water supply. Edmonton kept its in place. Now, the science comparing the two cities directly, is rolling in and it's not looking good for Calgary.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/tooth-decay-calgary-fluoride-water-1.3450616
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdoe.12215/abstract

This is a good example of why that 'section 48' campaign is a bad idea (50,000 voters however enlightened or deluded can call a referendum)

All sorts of anti-F, antivaxxer, YD-er, and general religious loony types could get a referendum put to a vote. With populist garbage like anti-F the scientifically illiterate electorate would probably pass it, too.

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

And the fact that the Danish authorities haven't even offered the possibility that child rape (or any rape) even might be occurring as justification for their actions has managed to remain entirely absent from your analysis of what you perceive as occurring.

Do you know what the Danish authorities have or have not offered as justification for their actions? Would you accept an adult having sex with a person under the age of consent as justification? Would you accept the child in question being pregnant as evidence that they had sex

looksee

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/faith-and-foolishness/

When religious beliefs become dangerous - and if a survey shows something you don't want to know, ignore it.

galljga1

looksee wrote: »

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/faith-and-foolishness/

When religious beliefs become dangerous - and if a survey shows something you don't want to know, ignore it.

The world gets a little stranger, day by day.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

Do you know what the Danish authorities have or have not offered as justification for their actions?

I do; it was posted in the original article and I have repeated it a number of times on the thread, but here it is again:

"It is completely unacceptable that there are currently minors within the Danish asylum system living with their spouses or partners and I have asked the Danish Immigration Service to immediately put a stop to it," Støjberg said.

The Danish Minister's justification for her instruction was simply that she found it 'unacceptable'.

galljga1 wrote: »

Would you accept an adult having sex with a person under the age of consent as justification? Would you accept the child in question being pregnant as evidence that they had sex

I would accept evidence of an adult having sex with a person under the age of consent as justification for detaining and prosecuting them.

galljga1 wrote: »

Would you accept the child in question being pregnant as evidence that they had sex

I would accept a young woman being pregnant as evidence that she had sex, but I would not accept a young woman being pregnant alone as evidence that an illegal act had occurred, no.

I have a sneaking suspicion that line of questions is intended to conclude that any pregnant wives of refugees could justifiably be separated from their husbands; I don't believe that could be the case without relying on assumptions rather than evidence.

JPNelsforearm

Absolam wrote: »

And the fact that the Danish authorities haven't even offered the possibility that child rape (or any rape) even might be occurring as justification for their actions has managed to remain entirely absent from your analysis of what you perceive as occurring.

I was being glib with the "rape" remark, obviously it would take an investigation to discern whether any rape had occurred. That isnt the issue, the issue is Danish law is being superceded by Koranic law, the rape that may, or may not occur is immaterial. I have no trouble saying it, Islam and the resultant Middle Eastern "culture" it has dictated, is savagery and barbarism, it is incompatible with Western civilisation, the fact right on types are encouraging us to accept it as equal to two thousand plus years of forward progress is disgusting.

Absolam wrote: »

I would accept a young woman being pregnant as evidence that she had sex, but I would not accept a young woman being pregnant alone as evidence that an illegal act had occurred, no.

I have a sneaking suspicion that line of questions is intended to conclude that any pregnant wives of refugees could justifiably be separated from their husbands; I don't believe that could be the case without relying on assumptions rather than evidence.

"The immaculate conception"

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

I do; it was posted in the original article and I have repeated it a number of times on the thread, but here it is again:

The Danish Minister's justification for her instruction was simply that she found it 'unacceptable'.

So you read something in an article and drew your conclusions. Very good. Are you aware of any specific case in which evidence of wrongdoing was not presented?

Absolam wrote: »

I would accept evidence of an adult having sex with a person under the age of consent as justification for detaining and prosecuting them.

Well, at least we have that.

Absolam wrote: »

I would accept a young woman being pregnant as evidence that she had sex, but I would not accept a young woman being pregnant alone as evidence that an illegal act had occurred, no.

Personally I would accept a child being pregnant as evidence of her adult partner having sex with her. That is an illegal act in Denmark.

Absolam wrote: »

I have a sneaking suspicion that line of questions is intended to conclude that any pregnant wives of refugees could justifiably be separated from their husbands; I don't believe that could be the case without relying on assumptions rather than evidence.

Incorrect. In Denmark, if an adult is living with a child as his "wife" and she is pregnant, the pregnant child should be separated from the adult and the adult should be prosecuted. I think the fact that the child is pregnant is evidence enough.


Do you know what evidence was presented in these separation cases?
Do you know that no evidence was presented?

Absolam

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I was being glib with the "rape" remark, obviously it would take an investigation to discern whether any rape had occurred. That isnt the issue, the issue is Danish law is being superceded by Koranic law, the rape that may, or may not occur is immaterial. I have no trouble saying it, Islam and the resultant Middle Eastern "culture" it has dictated, is savagery and barbarism, it is incompatible with Western civilisation, the fact right on types are encouraging us to accept it as equal to two thousand plus years of forward progress is disgusting.

If it isn't the issue, you really oughtn't to have put it forward as if it was then. As for what is your issue, in fairness it's your issue, not theirs.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

"The immaculate conception"

I'm not sure how what you bolded is relevant to how the Virgin Mary was conceived, but I suppose it must have something to with your notion that people from other places are just dreadful altogether?

JPNelsforearm

Absolam wrote: »

If it isn't the issue, you really oughtn't to have put it forward as if it was then. As for what is your issue, in fairness it's your issue, not theirs.

I dont have a problem with other people, I have a massive problem with Islam superceding Danish Law, and with your cultural relativism.

I'm not sure how what you bolded is relevant to how the Virgin Mary was conceived, but I suppose it must have something to with your notion that people from other places are just dreadful altogether?

The "virgin" Mary reference referred to your belief that a child bride can conceive without an illegal act occurring.

I would accept a young woman being pregnant as evidence that she had sex, but I would not accept a young woman being pregnant alone as evidence that an illegal act had occurred, no.


I'll ask again, how did she conceive if not for an illegal act? An immaculate conception?

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

So you read something in an article and drew your conclusions. Very good.

I haven't drawn any conclusions; I presented precisely what was written in the article. Drawing a conclusion would be something like....
"removing a child from the company of an adult where a sexual relationship is known or suspected"
"we are talking about adults having sex with children"
"They are applying their laws to people living within the country's borders"
"Danes apply law to combat paedophilic/hebephilicabuse of immigrant child brides"
"This is quite simply sexual abuse of children"
"i shall no longer engage with you"
You've drawn all of those conclusions without presenting evidence for any of them (except the last for which you've presented evidence to the contrary).

galljga1 wrote: »

Are you aware of any specific case in which evidence of wrongdoing was not presented?

I'm not aware of a case where wrongdoing has even been alleged, with or without evidence being presented. Are you?

galljga1 wrote: »

Personally I would accept a child being pregnant as evidence of her adult partner having sex with her. That is an illegal act in Denmark.

Without a moments consideration for the possiblity that she could have sex with someone else? Or that she could have had sex where it wasn't an illegal act? A career in prosecution may not be a wise choice for you so.

galljga1 wrote: »

Incorrect. In Denmark, if an adult is living with a child as his "wife" and she is pregnant, the pregnant child should be separated from the adult and the adult should be prosecuted. I think the fact that the child is pregnant is evidence enough.

Hang on... I'm incorrect in saying that I think your line of questions is intended to conclude that any pregnant wives of refugees could justifiably be separated from their husbands, because... you've concluded they should be separated by virtue of the fact that wife is pregnant? Hmm.
Anyway, your idea that the wife being pregnant is evidence enough I don't think is going to pass the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' but I look forward to watching anyone in Denmark try to present such a case.

galljga1 wrote: »

Do you know what evidence was presented in these separation cases? Do you know that no evidence was presented?

What separation cases? I haven't seen anything about any Danish government agency presenting any cases, have you? Only the Danish Integration Minister asking the Danish Immigration Service to separate the couples. But I'd be fascinated to see the cases you've dug up to show us, replete with evidence.

Absolam

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I dont have a problem with other people, I have a massive problem with Islam superceding Danish Law, and with your cultural relativism.

When did Islam supercede Danish law? Your problem with my cultural relativism is, I'm afraid, just your problem. I assure you there's nothing to be done about it.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The "virgin" Mary reference referred to your belief that a child bride can conceive without an illegal act occurring.

So, if I follow you correctly, Saint Anne was a child bride, and an illegal act didn't occur then, so, an illegal act didn't occur in other circumstances? Maybe... it's not really the argument I was putting forward though.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I'll ask again, how did she conceive if not for an illegal act? An immaculate conception?

Sorry. I really don't see what the immaculate conception has to do with it. I think you need to explain that a bit more. And you're not asking again; this is the first time you've asked. To answer your question anyway, she can conceive by having sex in a jurisdiction where it is not an illegal act, for instance the jurisdiction in which she was married.

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

I haven't drawn any conclusions; I presented precisely what was written in the article. Drawing a conclusion would be something like....
"removing a child from the company of an adult where a sexual relationship is known or suspected"
"we are talking about adults having sex with children"
"They are applying their laws to people living within the country's borders"
"Danes apply law to combat paedophilic/hebephilicabuse of immigrant child brides"
"This is quite simply sexual abuse of children"
"i shall no longer engage with you"
You've drawn all of those conclusions without presenting evidence for any of them (except the last for which you've presented evidence to the contrary).

All valid.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not aware of a case where wrongdoing has even been alleged, with or without evidence being presented. Are you?

No, I am not. I was asking you.

Absolam wrote: »

Without a moments consideration for the possiblity that she could have sex with someone else? Or that she could have had sex where it wasn't an illegal act? A career in prosecution may not be a wise choice for you so.

Do you think it is likely that these pregnant children had sex with someone other than their "husbands"? Do you think it is likely that given that these children are pregnant and still with their adult "husbands" that they never had sex with their "husbands"? Do you think it is likely that these adults will have sex with these children again?

Absolam wrote: »

Hang on... I'm incorrect in saying that I think your line of questions is intended to conclude that any pregnant wives of refugees could justifiably be separated from their husbands, because... you've concluded they should be separated by virtue of the fact that wife is pregnant? Hmm.
Anyway, your idea that the wife being pregnant is evidence enough I don't think is going to pass the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' but I look forward to watching anyone in Denmark try to present such a case.

Yes you are incorrect as I have explained in my previous post: if an adult is living with a child as his "wife" and she is pregnant, the pregnant child should be separated from the adult and the adult should be prosecuted. I think the fact that the child is pregnant is evidence enough.

Absolam wrote: »

What separation cases? I haven't seen anything about any Danish government agency presenting any cases, have you? Only the Danish Integration Minister asking the Danish Immigration Service to separate the couples. But I'd be fascinated to see the cases you've dug up to show us, replete with evidence.

I am not aware of any separation cases. I was asking a simple question.

Nodin

"Indian authorities have imposed curfews and shoot-to-kill orders in a northern state after two days of violent protests over caste rights.
Three people have died and about 80 injured in the clashes involving the Jat community in Haryana state.
The Jats are currently listed as upper caste but the demonstrators want job quotas similar to those granted to lower castes."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35620647

.....attack them when they're on the bottom, attack them when they might get ahead.

recedite

I think if these Johnny Jats want to be declared as officially a "backward" tribe, then that should be allowed. Everybody has a right to be backward, if they like :pac:

Reservations became more political in 1989, when the VP Singh-led government of the day decided to extend their benefits to Other Backward Classes (OBCs), based on the recommendations of the Mandal Commission.
The OBCs hailed from the lower and intermediate castes who were deemed backward because they lacked "upper caste" status. As more and more people sought fewer available government and university positions, we witnessed the unedifying (and unwittingly hilarious) spectacle of castes fighting with each other to be declared backward...

source

Perhaps the more forward thinking Indians might consider abolishing all quotas and reserved jobs, and the civil service could then simply refuse to ask about or acknowledge the "caste" of job applicants in any way?

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

All valid.

How do you think? You've presented evidence for none of them (apart from the last, where your evidence proved you wrong).

galljga1 wrote: »

No, I am not. I was asking you.

So no one has seen any evidence of wrongdoing, other than the Minister seeking the separation of couples without cause? That's what I've been saying...

galljga1 wrote: »

Do you think it is likely that these pregnant children had sex with someone other than their "husbands"? Do you think it is likely that given that these children are pregnant and still with their adult "husbands" that they never had sex with their "husbands"? Do you think it is likely that these adults will have sex with these children again?

I think it's possible they had sex without someone else, I think it's possible they had sex in another jurisdiction, and I think that means you're miles away from a criminal conviction (if anyone were bringing charges, which you've presented no evidence of).

galljga1 wrote: »

Yes you are incorrect as I have explained in my previous post: if an adult is living with a child as his "wife" and she is pregnant, the pregnant child should be separated from the adult and the adult should be prosecuted. I think the fact that the child is pregnant is evidence enough.

Yes, we can tell you do, (which means I was correct by the way) but criminal justice systems tend to require a tad more evidence than you do. Some evidence, for a start.

galljga1 wrote: »

I am not aware of any separation cases. I was asking a simple question.

There you go then; you're not even aware of a single prosecution being brought by the Danish authorities. Despite all those pregnant hussies flaunting their husbands at people.

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

How do you think? You've presented evidence for none of them (apart from the last, where your evidence proved you wrong).

So no one has seen any evidence of wrongdoing, other than the Minister seeking the separation of couples without cause? That's what I've been saying...

I think it's possible they had sex without someone else, I think it's possible they had sex in another jurisdiction, and I think that means you're miles away from a criminal conviction (if anyone were bringing charges, which you've presented no evidence of).
Yes, we can tell you do, (which means I was correct by the way) but criminal justice systems tend to require a tad more evidence than you do. Some evidence, for a start.
There you go then; you're not even aware of a single prosecution being brought by the Danish authorities. Despite all those pregnant hussies flaunting their husbands at people.

No evidence? Are you just being obtuse for the sake of it? Your stance would be laughable if it was not so distasteful.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

No evidence? Are you just being obtuse for the sake of it? Your stance would be laughable if it was not so distasteful.

Yes, no evidence. Plenty of suppositions and assumptions, but not a shred of evidence. Not a bit. If you disagree, feel free to provide links..............

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, no evidence. Plenty of suppositions and assumptions, but not a shred of evidence. Not a bit. If you disagree, feel free to provide links..............

"'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving".

It turns out, "The Good Book" is useful for something.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

"'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving".
It turns out, "The Good Book" is useful for something.

So... no links then?

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

So... no links then?

There is plenty of proof for me and any right minded person. I support the removal of these children from the adults with whom they are having sex. You on the other hand appear to support adults having sex with children. At the very least, you refuse to condemn it. A pretty bizarre stance.

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

There is plenty of proof for me and any right minded person. I support the removal of these children from the adults with whom they are having sex. You on the other hand appear to support adults having sex with children. At the very least, you refuse to condemn it. A pretty bizarre stance.

So, no. No evidence, and no links.

galljga1

Absolam wrote: »

So, no. No evidence, and no links.

As I said, there is plenty of evidence for any right minded person... There is no point in providing it to you.

volchitsa

galljga1 wrote: »

As I said, there is plenty of evidence for any right minded person... There is no point in providing it to you.

How can you be so categorical about it? Never heard of the virgin birth, hmm?
You need evidence! Unbeliever and probably apostate as well! :rolleyes:


(Isn't a child born to a married couple considered by default to be the husband's child? The age of the bride is irrelevant to that, surely?)

galljga1

volchitsa wrote: »

How can you be so categorical about it? Never heard of the virgin birth, hmm?
You need evidence! Unbeliever and probably apostate as well! :rolleyes:


(Isn't a child born to a married couple considered by default to be the husband's child? The age of the bride is irrelevant to that, surely?)

Yeah, Mary pulled that one on Joseph a long time ago or maybe he was in on it too. He'd be a bit of a fool otherwise.

Are they actually considered married under Danish law?

Absolam

galljga1 wrote: »

As I said, there is plenty of evidence for any right minded person... There is no point in providing it to you.

Sure... just none that you can show anyone, right? They have to be 'right minded' to see it