Public Polling Policy surveyed 316 Republican primary voters—the hard core— from February 20th to 22nd to measure their attitudes and policy views, as well as their current preferences for President. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 5.5%. The results are here.
The headlines will be about the candidate rankings, which are meaningless at this point. The valuable revelation, especially for Democrats who want to mercilessly mock their Republican friends, if they have any, and Republicans who want to drown themselves out of hopelessness and shame are…
A. The graphic above, showing that 57% of the Republicans polled want to establish a national religion, Christianity, and
B. The fact that only 37% believe in evolution.
A is the ethics part of “ethics dunce,” though to even think this a citizen has to be so spectacularly and unforgivably ignorant about the Constitution, the settling of America, the nature of freedom, and what all this terrorist stuff is all about that the question of whether the whole education system should be blown up and replaced with, oh, I don’t know, implanted microchips maybe, needs to be debated seriously, and we can only hope that the job market for human paperweights is booming.
See, you utterly moronic theocratic dolts, the United States of America can’t have a national religion because of the same Bill of Rights that you constantly cite to object to selling Chapstick to gays or to oppose efforts to take away your Uzis. The United States of America can’t have a national religion because it is the United States of America. See, if this country could do what you want it to do, President Obama would have every reason not to love America, and so would I and Rudy Giuliani.
The “dunce” part is B. I’m sure I’d have to explain why to that 63%, but it isn’t worth the time, because it’s hopeless.
Sadly, this explains a lot.
Like this.
This.
And this.
And this
A LOT.
___________
Pointer: Althouse
Ethics Alarms 
This is a situation where the Republicans could use someone like any of the resident lefty spin doctors who can take any unfavorable data set and tie pretzels with their rhetoric to show the data to be unreliable, false, or to show exactly opposite what it says on its face or the study to be wrought with scientific laziness or bad protocol…
Alas, I don’t think any of the resident righties engage in those tactics to any serious degree. But I hope someone tries.
I sure hope someone can show that 316 does not a sample make, or that the survey wasn’t actually of Republican primarists, or anything.
Needless to say, if the survey is accurate and fairly done…that’s pretty embarrassing.
Only 316?? How were they chosen?? Where were they from?? What demographic still answers computerized polling questions??? Who trusts Internet-based polls?? How does PPP get email addresses of “primary voters”?? Just asking knowing PPP is a left-leaning Democrat polling company and because in 40+ years of being active in GOP circles, I’ve never met anyone who fits the profiles of wanting a national religion or not believing in evolution. Guess I run in saner circles, but this “poll” is quite suspect.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114682/ppp-polling-methodology-opaque-flawed
Okay, now explain those state reps.
I think all polls are suspect. I have also been hearing and reading about a lot of elected officials who call themselves Republican and are embarrassments to the species. I don’t know about the numbers; I do know that those two strains—obsession with religion and scientific obtuseness—run very deep in conservative circles, and undermine the GOP’s influence, respect, competence, perspective and rationality.
This doesn’t jive with what I know… and I know a lot of hard core Texas Christian Republicans. In fact, I’m one. (In case you hadn’t guessed!) Contrary to “popular opinion” (as expressed by the media) we’re not all white… nor even all Christian. We acknowledge that Judeo-Christian traditions and ethics lie at the basis of this country’s foundation. But we are also firm constitutionalists. There can be no national church. We know why this was placed in the Constitution and agree with it. This “poll” is just an attempt to re-enforce the “Christian Dominionism” line that the leftist press has been trying to push in order to establish moral relativism with the Moslem Caliphate… which is damn real. I can just imagine what questions these people were asked and in what order in order to obtain such a “result”.
The questions are available at the link.
Oh, it’s not just Christians. For example, Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Spring,
She’s just instigated two bills, HBs 1747 and 1748, that together criminalise Intersex people using public restrooms.
HB1747 would make a 46,XY woman with CAIS (or Swyer syndrome or,,,) criminal if they used a male restroom, as their ID would say “Female”. Similarly a 46,XX man with CAH (or De La Chapelle syndrome or…) is criminal if they use a female restroom, for the same reason.
HB1748 on the other hand makes use of a female restroom by anyone with a Y chromosome a crime. Similarly use of a male restroom by someone lacking one.
Riddle currently serves as Vice Chair of Juvenile Justice and Family Issues Committee.
Source :
Click to access HB01747I.pdf
Click to access HB01748I.pdf
Of course, anyone repeatedly allowing an Intersex person to use a restroom matching their legal and documented sex, but not their chromosomes – they commit a serious felony, good for 4 years in the slammer.
Because small government, apparently.
“Because small government, apparently.”
One of the rapidly tiring memes…. it’s called a false generalization.
That the Republicans are supporting slightly bigger government on a handful of items on certain state levels doesn’t derail a track record of supporting small government…
No, but the sense that the small government principle only applies when a matter is considered low priority by conservatives while government over-reach in furtherance of pet conservative causes is not only tolerated but supported does not burnish the brand.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/arkansas-clears-new-kind-anti-lgbt-law
—
Because local government can’t be trusted not to allow discrimination. Power must be centralised.
In America, we call that “tyranny”. That’s why we have a constitution.
All the bill in question does is to centralize the power to deal with discrimination on the state level, similar to what California did regarding plastic grocery bags and race-based affirmative action.
That’s California’s business. They have the right to be stupid. What they don’t have is the right to violate the Constitution and demand that other states bear the inevitable cost for their follies.
So wait, you are decrying that more government is bad for intersex people, and your solution is more government?
I’m saying that persecution of Intersex people has just been re-legalised in 4% of the country, soon to be 14%.
It was illegal in 40% at one point.
The legal principle as I understand it was that rights at the Federal level were the minimum. That states could extend those rights, but not diminish them. And that cities and counties could extend the state rights, but not diminish them.
For example, employment preference to veterans, additional facilities for pregnant women, and so on.
Now they’re not allowed to. What was the minimum has become the maxiumum. Anything not compulsory is forbidden.Because Freedom.
“Because Freedom.”
You’ve used the “because *noun*” meme on probably over half your posts. Unless you are an uneducated college punk kid trying to sound clever, you may want to give it a rest.
Of course you have facilities for pregnant women! How is that in any way comparable to cross dressing idiots? As a veteran, I’ve never been offered a job based on that status, nor do I know any others who have. We didn’t ask for special status from anyone and don’t really want it, much less demand. We tend to work for a living. Any benefits we have from the government is what we earned. What have transies ever learned… except vileness?
Totally off your point, but I have been offered one, based on vet-preference, and I turned it down.
I’d have to be really desperate to take some government spnsored “vet preference” job. We you do that, the government owns a piece of you.
Absolutely! Reason I turned it down. Also, I didn’t feel like my skill set actually matched up that well with the job.
Thus is the value of Freedom of Speech shown once more.
Because haters gotta hate. All you have to do is let them speak in a discussion. No need to editorialise, or comment. Their own words speak far more loudly than yours about them.
But now I’m guilty of stating the obvious.
Youre guilty of saying the obtuse… as usual. Right now, I’m looking a a huge line of posts on my email, largely made by the usual suspects (while I slept!) in order to drown me out in, as I called it earlier, a barrage of verbiage. Okay, Zoe. I don’t have anything like the time to wade through the usual welter of elitist meemies, pseudo-intellectual mutterings and links to junk science… which you evidently count on. But then again, there are those of us who actually work for a living out here. Go ahead and believe what you want, then. Just remember that, while you and your ilk my be able- for a time- to redefine reality, reshaping it is forever beyond your power. Only one Being can do that. And however much you may hate Him or deny Him, His reality ultimately asserts itself. As they say, reality bites. Prepare yourself to be bitten. It will be just one of those ironies if the “biter” turns out to be one of those “happy people” you’ve expended all this time in making icons out of. C’est la vie.
There is nothing wrong with such laws.
So I presume that you believe that the prerogative on this issue should rest with the owners of those restrooms, right?
Depends – if it’s a public accommodation, it’s open to the public.
Not just “those people we happen to be like, and not Jews, Blacks etc”.
Private accommodations are a different matter. There freedom of association rules.
So, should public accommodations be required to provide sex integrated restrooms even if they only have on restroom. (If there is only one restroom, by necessity it must be sex integrated).
As a matter if fact, if an establishment has sex segregated restrooms, classifying by birth sex is not discrimination against transgendered, because the transgendered are being treated like everyone else (which is the opposite of discrimination).
Why birth sex? Why not actual sex?
And perhaps you could tell me what is to be gained by preventing Intersex people from using public restrooms? Is that the objective, or are we just “collateral damage” in order to combat an epidemic of crime?
If that isn’t the objective, what is?
The “collateral damage” hypothesis looks increasingly shaky in view of the positive evidence over decades that not only is any increase in crime significant, it’s nonexistent With proof of that.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/20/15-experts-debunk-right-wing-transgender-bathro/198533
Because birth sex IS “actual sex”, Zoe. It’s not complicated at all.
http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html
In an isolated village of the southwestern Dominican Republic, 2% of the live births were in the 1970’s, guevedoces … These children appeared to be girls at birth, but at puberty these ‘girls’ sprout muscles, testes, and a penis. For the rest of their lives they are men in nearly all respects (see photograph 6 below). Their underlying pathology was found to be a deficiency of the enzyme, 5-alpha Reductase.
We’re talking about genetic abnormalities, Zoe. Consider that term. You also have Siamese twins. You actually have twins who inhabit one body. Abnormal, Zoe. Besides, this has little to do with these deranged, self-determined freaks who like to march down Folsom Street in Frisco.
Now it can be argued that such people were “really” male at birth. The obsolete term is “male pseudohermaphrodite”, but that just means “appearing as hermaphroditic, but not really, they look more male than female”. It says nothing about *real* sex.
However, see
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2010/237.html
Was “Sally” male at birth – or any time thereafter?
What about this case – was this person born male?
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/23178930/mum-forced-to-leave-australia-after-discovering-gender-error-on-birth-certificate/
What a lot of brainless, off-the-wall tripe! If you have a Y chromosome and family jewels, you’re a guy. If not, you ain’t. If you have a glandular imbalance that has given you physical problems, see a doctor. If you have delusion that a physical inspection of yourself can’t resolve (!), see a head shrinker. Just don’t come to me and demand a special status that re-enforces and legitimizes your perversity. And stay away from kids. They don’t need any of that.
If it’s not complicated, then you should be able to answer those questions without much thought.
Same with this situation –
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/17/gaza.gender.id/
And this one
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jan;93(1):182-9
A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.
Under HB1747, they can’t use male restrooms because they’re female, and under HB1748, can’t use female restrooms because they’re male.
What *is* the birth sex of these two people – to use neutral terms and not pre-judge the issue?
Some of these “perverts” are only a few months old.
It’s kids who are Intersex that I try to advocate for – having been one of them myself, long, long ago.
The only “special status” here that I’m asking for is not to be thrown in jail for a year for using a female public restroom, because I’m “genetically impure”.
Naturally I can’t use a male one because of HB 1747, introduced at the same time by the same Rep. That prevents those with female IDs from using male restrooms, it’s classed as “disorderly conduct”.
If it’s any help, I believe that you, Steve, are an excellent representative of the GOP base. That you are even one of the better people involved in the formulation of the Texas GOP platform. That you are, in your own mind, a patriot, standing up for all that is Right and Good.
That the words you have written here in the comments, and your tone and behaviour, typify your views, and the views of all those like you. In fact, many would adopt a less measured tone than you, would they not? You’re one of the more…. well, less emotive ones. No falling on the floor, frothing at the mouth and biting the carpet,as some do on both Left and Right.
By all means continue, the more others are exposed to your views, the better they can judge both you and the GOP base you so accurately represent, and judge me too by my responses.
Freedom of Speech. I value it highly not for just what I say, but to reveal to others what you and those of like mind reallythink too.
If a public place has one restroom, I have no objection to that restroom being sex integrated by law.
But if there are an even number of restrooms, I have no objection to the proprietor segregating the restrooms by birth sex.
A solution to the problem…Wal-mart has three bathrooms, male, female and family. Why not make the family bathroom an open bathroom, usable by anyone who chooses? Removes the conflict by allowing only one person at a time into the bathroom. I don’t think anybody will claim that it takes two people to pee.
When you have one of those single restrooms, it’s usually set up for only one person at a time or for a parent with a young child. And the door is to be locked.
A woman with CAIS would be prohibited from using a male restroom under HB1747, as her ID says female.
She’d then be prohibited from using a female restroom under HB1748. as she’s genetically impure.
The combination of the two is aimed specifically at preventing Intersex people from using public restrooms, and making it a serious felony, good for 4 years imprisonment, for anyone who allows them to.
It’s GOP doctrine in several states that the US Constitution is divinely inspired by God, and contains direct quotes from the Bible.
So says GOP Historian David Barton.
What’s “GOP doctrine” other than “something some ignorant wackos in high places say”?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/24/us-usa-idaho-christian-idUSKBN0LS2Q020150224
Have you read the Texas GOP party platform? Or many others?
This is *not* just a few loons at the top. They genuinely represent a large proportion of GOP followers who bother to vote – though are thoroughly unrepresentative of the majority who are increasingly apathetic, see (R), vote accordingly (if they vote at all), and never bother to find out what “their team” is supposed to stand for.
Education’s the key, but when the Left has cried WOLF! so often, many just turn off, seeing it as just more of the same BS.
What would you like to know about the Texas GOP platform, Zoe? I have my fingerprints on it.
Does it really call for the protection of Hydatidiform moles – products of conception – as human?
Does it really oppose any civil or criminal penalties for those who oppose homosexuality by going around beating and killing them, or any other method whatsoever?
Does it really say that “reparative therapy” is effective, a proposition as comprehensively disproved as the “Flat Earth” theory?
And talking about which – does it seek to teach all sides of scientific theories – the Stork, Cabbage-Patch and Fertilisation theories of how babies come to be, the Flat vs Round Earth, the 6000yr old Earth vs Last-Thursdayism and so on?
Does it repeatedly require affirmation of counterfactual Christian belief, such as Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that have been ordained by God in the Bible,
1. What the hell are you gibbering about?
2. Lie. Equal protection under law is core to our platform. The nuance here, of course, is that deviants are being pursued by mobs. Most crimes against them are from other perverts.
3. Certainly. Especially where children are concerned. There’s nothing “flat earth” about it… except to liberals.
4. Sheer, hollow gibberish.
Anything else?
Exhibit A:
http://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014-Platform-Final.pdf
Yeah I couldn’t find 80% of the claims you made…
As for the homosexual line item…the platform is wrong.
Please elucidate the rest, otherwise you’re just lying.
Oh, and fitting unexpected cases into general platform statements is juvenile cheating (and you know it is, as any generalized statement can be exceptioned to death).
I can refer to a copy of the platform at any time. I brought back a few copies from the last convention.
They were questions, asking if the interpretation of the wording was correct.
To be specific:
Principle 2. The sanctity of human life, created in the image of God, which should be protected from fertilization to natural death.
Right to Life- All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn, the aged, and the physically or mentally challenged have a fundamental individual right to life, which cannot be infringed.
Abortion Legislation …3. Prohibition of abortion due to the results of genetic diagnosis
While your religion may state (where in scripture exactly?) that human life begins at conception, the biological fact is that conception can result on a hydatidiform mole – an aggressive, malignant cancer. Removal of it is abortion, the result of a genetic diagnosis, but necessary to prevent maternal death.
My question was – is such a product of conception considered “unborn innocent human life”?
Next point
Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
In 1988, Texas Judge Jack Hampton gave a man 30 years for killing two gay men, instead of the life sentence requested by the prosecutor. After handing down his judgment, he said: “I don’t much care for queers cruising the streets picking up teenage boys …[I] put prostitutes and gays at about the same level … and I’d be hard put to give somebody life for killing a prostitute.”
In 1987, Judge Daniel Fitch said “That’s a crime now, to beat up a homosexual?” The prosecutor responded, “Yes, sir. And it’s also a crime to kill them.” The judge replied “Times have really changed,”.
My question was – to what extent does the opposition to criminal or civil penalties in such cases extend? Does the GOP really want to go back to the Good Old Days when no-one in Texas would face criminal penalties just for bashing up Queers?
After those queries are answered, we can look at the next verbatim quotes from the Texas GOP policy, starting with the endorsement of snake-oil.
Reparative Therapy- We recognize the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy.
Controversial Theories- We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories.
Homosexuality- Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that have been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nation’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans
blockquote>”Principle 2. The sanctity of human life, created in the image of God, which should be protected from fertilization to natural death.
Right to Life- All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn, the aged, and the physically or mentally challenged have a fundamental individual right to life, which cannot be infringed.
Abortion Legislation …3. Prohibition of abortion due to the results of genetic diagnosis”
While your religion may state (where in scripture exactly?) that human life begins at conception, the biological fact is that conception can result on a hydatidiform mole – an aggressive, malignant cancer. Removal of it is abortion, the result of a genetic diagnosis, but necessary to prevent maternal death.
My question was – is such a product of conception considered “unborn innocent human life”?”
Cute, but we already established that rare exceptions do not undermine generalized platform statements. Duh, that’s juvenile cheating, and you know it. But since you insist –
1) To short hand the theological discussion: nowhere in Christian scripture is the “beginning of life” delineated, so it’s a somewhat irrelevent point to demand, since it, if it must be derived from scripture, would only derive from an interpretation of seemingly related topics. Most would point to the passages describing God knowing you in the womb, that you are fearfully and wonderfully made, and that you were created by Him in the womb.
2) Which is irrelevant, sanctity of life in the womb is valid sans scripture and from a purely rational argument.
3) Hydatidiform mole, a non-typical gestational complication, entering *new variables* into the calculus, are rare enough to not warrant a specific line item in a political platform. You see, I know you are adult enough to recognize that political platforms are generalized statements.
4) I haven’t seen any mainstream conservative or Republican argument yet that won’t give the choice to the mother when a conflict arises between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn. So, in this case, despite the “platform” not specifying how such a conflict resolves, it’s safe to assume that would be the intent here as well.
So much for that…
Really? Really? We’re gonna pretend like “oppose” includes murder? You’re an idiot.
By the way, that judge was censured by his own ilk. Odd if his comments reflected a party platform.
This is a fine work of Cherry Picking. Utter bunk.
“My question was – to what extent does the opposition to criminal or civil penalties in such cases extend? Does the GOP really want to go back to the Good Old Days when no-one in Texas would face criminal penalties just for bashing up Queers?”
Are you stupid? The murderers in question were convicted, you imbecile. The judge was censured for an obvious breach of judicial ethics and lessened the sentence (which was acknowledged to be wrong by the way). Cherry picking really gets people into trouble when research is done.
Moot point, I’ve already identified that the Republicans are wrong about homosexuality. Beating a dead horse there…but I suppose necessary for your gish gallop of non-sequiturs.
Almost not worthy of discussing. The FULL line item, which you conveniently edited, mandates NOTHING, but rather protects anyone engaging in classroom discussion. A somewhat wasted line item, but harmless nonetheless.
Yeah, this joins the other moot point, I’ve already acknowledged the Republicans are wrong on this topic.
So now. Back to your inability to substantiate 80% of your claims…
Liar is smelling more and more likely.
I had to run off to a meeting, Tex, so I haven’t seen the remarks that you just answered, but I can pretty well establish them from the context of your reply! I would have expected nothing less from her. I just didn’t have the time to give anything but a curt reply myself to the obvious fallacies and deceptiveness of her early statements. Thanks for the research. Obviously, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on the relevance of the homosexual section of the platform.
What’s your deal with homosexuals?
You’ve got three options:
1) They are naturally homosexual and can’t help themselves. In which case you are a jerk to legally compel them to stop being homosexual.
2) They are the product of a series of very unfortunate abuses and events in their lives that mentally imbalanced them and they are simply sick in the head. *Afflictions by the way* that affect heterosexuals as well and can manifest in unnatural sexual behavior for that particular individual.
3) Are completely healthy adults who simply choose to “switch hit”.
I can see ALL three being valid reasons, which science lending that vast majority of homosexuals fall into the 1st Category, which means, as long as the 2nd & 3rd Categories aren’t breaking laws, then they get protected like the 1st Category.
Category 4: They are mentally disturbed people who have banded together to promote their depravity as normalcy and, in the process, push their affliction on others (to include the recruitment of children) in their quest to keep their numbers up and thus their position of political power in far left alliances.
Yeah, that’s Category 2. I don’t doubt there are certain individuals out there that are engaged in illegal, harassing, and abusive conduct derived from a mental imbalance psychologically tied to sexuality. No doubt.
But that isn’t the majority.
And even if Category 1 is Protected, LAWS BEING BROKEN by Category 2 types WOULD STILL BE LAWS BEING BROKEN…
As for their positions of political power in Far Left alliances. The Right could break those alliances with one flip of the switch. The Left has only happened on the homosexual support TO GET FREE VOTES AND NO OTHER REASON.
I would respond that homosexuals, in choosing to be what they are in spite of all it entails, already demonstrate the basic mindset of the Left in regard to inherent dismissal of reality and rationality. Thus, they are naturally inclined to be leftists, come what may. The moral answer is not to assist them in their delusions, but grant them our prayers and our aid in regaining their kinship with humanity.
Erm…Category 1 (the vast majority according to studies) doesn’t choose…
It’s a terrible delusion, but somewhere along the line it requires an acceptance from the afflicted. The Deviant Movement not only seeks to legitimize this acceptance, but likewise to discourage by any means those who seek to renounce it and gain help. The self-destructiveness of sexual perversion is bad enough. What has made them dangerous, as I mentioned, is their quest to force their “special status” on the rest of us by legally outlawing the values of tradition America and forcing compliance. That’s where the tolerance ends.
So you are still addressing Category 2 types…
How about the vast majority which are Category 1 types…
I’m trying to point out that, to be an active homosexual- with all of the stark depravity it entails and the evident consequences of such activities- involves a level of insanity that allows for virtually any other sort of morally and ethically repugnant behavior… and all too often does. My “Category 4” was all-inclusive.
It isn’t “All Inclusive”. You continue to deny the scientifically studied cause, that, though homosexuality is not genetic, it is very much the result of hormone levels during gestation adjusting dispositions before birth.
That should be read as Natural.
Those childhood “adjustments” can be easily countered by parental counseling and the natural maturing process… which is the way it should be. The Deviant Movement seeks to counteract this process by inculcating children into their brand of “normalcy” as early as possible.
Tex, as I read the platform, no where in there is anybody being forced to give up homosexuality. That platform plank was solely in response to a California law that made it illegal to offer therapy to a homosexual who requested it, if he/she no longer wished to be gay. The plank simply states that if a gay person wants therapy to stop being gay, they should be allowed to get it. Personally, if anybody asked me whether or not they should get the therapy, I would advise against it, because it is unpleasant and stringent and apparently is successful in only a very few cases.
You are familiar with the concept of “Dog Whistle”politics?
While only a few of the GOP Texas platforms, if applied with reason and good faith, would be objectionable, the fact is that they wouldn’t be, and are not intended to be. For evidence I refer you not just to the historical record, but the asshattery in state legislation going on today.
My own country has been victim to that recently, so it’s a bit of a sore point. Deliberate perversion and corruption of reasonable legislation that if reasonably applied gives reasonable outcomes.
Now at the risk of derailment – for this is a parenthetical remark – it seems to me that the whole thing is based on a fundamental misconstrual of the 18th century concept of “Nature and Nature’s God”.
I’ll leave it up to a Utopian Idealist of the most pernicious kind, someone to whom no atrocity was impermissible in the quest for Virtue, and perhaps the greatest exponent of “Nature and Nature’s God” to elucidate.
Care to guess who this is?
“Care to guess who this is?”
No. But I’m sure you’ll delight me with notions of the relevancy of quoting a bloodthirsty radical whose philosophy turned out worse than those he decries in his quote…
Somehow should ring a bell about the uselessness of that quote.
But, yes, your derailment was successful, you avoided addressing your inability to substantiate the claims you made and were shown faulty.
To continue – and I think few of the (other) Founding Fathers would disagree with many of the sentiments here, though anathematising others:
Now you are speaking some sense and a language I can appreciate.
I wouldn’t file those quotes under the same heading as that other one…the one by the uninhibited killer…
(but not really though)
Quotes from bloodthirsty civilization eaters don’t really burnish your assertions.
The US Constitution, and to a lesser degree, the Declaration of Independence, had to be compromised in order to exist.
E Pluribus Unum. The motto of the USA.
The Fanatic Agnosticism of the “Progressive” Deists had to be couched in ambiguous language that admitted a conventional Judeo-Christian interpretation, one acceptable to all the squabbling sects, while not being confined to that interpretation. The assumption amongst Deists was that superstition (as they saw it) would die out as long as it wasn’t poked at. The various sects meanwhile could console themselves by saying that “God” really meant “Jesus Christ Our Lord And Saviour”.
The Deists were wrong. “E Pluribus Unum” has been replaced in modern times, less than 60 years ago, by “In God We Trust”, the original all but forgotten. Religion, be it Islam or Christianity, has become more, not less, politically powerful, despite the advance of science. Possibly because of it, it is a constant irritant.
The other, more shameful but necessary compromise was the retention of Slavery. But we all know the consequences of that.
Anyway, this is just a parenthetical remark, a deep background if you like, tangential to the main issue.
I really don’t think it’s more powerful. It’s just more desperately noisy from the diehards who feel it slipping away. A Democrat with guts could declare himself an atheist and be elected President…he might even win votes for integrity. Obama is no more a believer than was opposed to same sex marriage, in my estimation. It would not have made poor McCain President if he had been honest, and it might have truncated the hypocrisy.
I see that Zoe is indulging in the Leftist “Deist” fantasy in order to delegitimize the Declaration, the Constitution, Christianity and the Founding Fathers themselves. Old junk. Leftist are great believers in the Goebbels Principle.
Since this looks like a derivative of the “All the Founders were Actually Agnostic” or the “All the Founders were Actually Atheists” argument, I don’t think I’m going to bother.
Do you like Dan Brown novels?
And civilisation-eater, yes, I agree with all those descriptions. But all three are from him, and none of them contrary to the Spirit of 1776. He was indeed a Founding Father of the Revolution, just not the one in the USA.
Where he departed from the US Founding Fathers was here:
Thus the seeds of the “Red Terror” over a century later. And the despotism – the dictatorship – of the proletariat.
I too am a Utopian Idealist. The common features of those three quotes and the Texas GOP platform – and there are many, individual liberty for one – I subscribe to as well. OK, I’m atheist, but I have faith in an objective abstract Good rather than a personification, so from my viewpoint, the difference is minor.
This uninhibited killer, this devourer of civilisations, and the many other Utopian Idealists from Stalin to Hitler to Pol Pot to whoever the Caliph is today – are a warning. That I must never be so convinced of the Virtue of “my side” or the evil of opponents that I forget to be merely human. That even the best end does not justify “questionable” means, for “questionable” means WRONG.
Mimicking ingenuity looks alot like ingenuity, until the mimicker must come up with something on his own. His philosophy is contrary to that of 1776 regardless of some rhetorical similarity.
1) There IS an Objective GOOD, that GOOD IS absolute and will be undeniable (once found).
2) We haven’t found that Good yet. We are certainly on the right track in many components of our society. Definitely on the wrong track in some.
3) Ethics is the process of finding that Good.
4) There may be no invented system (that is, moral code) that perfectly encapsulates that good…yet.
5) However, we can create systems that nearly perfectly encapsulate the values necessary to secure the institutions needed to FIND the “ultimate” Good.
6) I would submit that the the 1776 Founders have created THAT system better than any others.
7) The French most decidedly did NOT.
8) The 1776 Founders were NOT closet Atheists/Agnostics, other than a few.
9) All the imposter idealists and utopians (which you listed) didn’t try to create a system that could pursue Good (as the 1776 Founders did). They tried to impose their version of good…and see what that got them and their constituencies.
When they start quoting Nietzche… look out!
If all were, or even a large majority were, the compromise words would not have been necessary.
From my readings, many were Deists, but more were Theists, even if many of those were unconventional in their beliefs – anti-Trinitarians and the like, or those who denied that Jesus was divine – as did Jefferson. He still called himself “Christian”.
And some were the most doctrinaire believers possible, even by the standards of today. They possibly outnumbered the actual Atheists.
E Pluribus Unum.
I think it significant though that the wording of the English (not Arabic) version of the Treaty of Tripoli – that the USA was not in any sense a “Christian Nation” – was deemed entirely uncontroversial at the time, an obvious truth.
Ugh. The Treaty of Tripoli doesn’t DEFINE shit. Statements made under duress don’t count.
Adams was trying to mollify a rotten savage because for a brief moment in time the rotten savage held an upper hand.
That being said, even though the Treaty of Tripoli not being worth the sandy dump of a “government” it was sent to, it doesn’t also mean that the United States was founded as a Christian nation.
Merely pointing out that the Treaty of Tripoli doesn’t hold weight as a statement that the country is NOT Christian.
Whatever the predominant culture of the nation is on the Free Market is what the nation is. In which case, at THAT time, America WAS a Christian nation. Regardless of what a statement made under duress said.
Nowadays? Not so much.
Every one of the Founding Fathers was a church member except Franklin and every one had proclaimed his devotion to God… including Franklin. The wording of a treaty with an outlaw state like Tripoli should not be taken literally. America was (and is) a Christian nation.
Reading the exchanges between Adams and Jefferson in their dotage, it’s hard to maintain the myth that they were genuinely religious. “Yeah,” says Tom in one. “I think it’s all probably bull, but my feeling is, hedge your bets.” “Ditto,” says John. Jimmy Carter they weren’t.
“Statement under duress”?
The Arabic version doesn’t contain those words. This version was for domestic consumption, not saying “nice doggie” while looking for a big stick.
““Statement under duress”?
The Arabic version doesn’t contain those words. This version was for domestic consumption, not saying “nice doggie” while looking for a big stick.”
Yes. Duress. I don’t think I need to review the relationship between the young United States and the Barbary Pirates… a relationship in which US commerce was at the distinct mercy of the Pirates for 3-5 decades after Independence.
The omission of the Article in question from the Arabic version is completely moot. The treaty was drafted IN Algiers, signed by the Barbary Powers BEFORE the President or Senate saw it or it’s contents. Additionally, it was translated to English BEFORE the President or Senate was aware of it’s contents.
Barlow (one of the Diplomats) falsifying the document presented before the Government only means the Government believed it was making that statement TO THE BARBARY POWERS.
And it is still a statement under duress. Not some “for public consumption” which is mighty presumptive of Barlow (alone) to do.
As I said, the Treaty doesn’t define shit. Either for or against the argument that America was a Christian nation.
It was a Christian nation because that was the overwhelming culture at the time. Further, the Treaty merely states the Government is not a Christian Government in that there is no mandate of Christianity made.
As if the Democratic base is perfect…
Yeah! It ain’t da WOIST ting!
I don’t see how that is even slightly relevant.
Polls are usually commissioned; I didn’t find any indication of who commissioned this poll on the PPP site. The sample size is suspect due to these ease of cherry picking with so few. I could, in the course of a weekend, with legal and open sources, pretty well target for polling 316 registered voters who are likely to believe that the moon landing was faked, or that vaccines cause autism, or just about anything. The targeting isn’t even necessary if one employs qualifiers in the series of questions, and terminates the questioning before all are answered; then simply moves on to the next respondent. The only data then counted is from ‘completed questioning’.
Those who commission the poll are the ones who determine the poll criteria and format. It’s their dime. Some really want good quality data, and some are seeking to make a point that will gain media attention. The former requires a very well designed poll, both as regards the sampling, and the questioning; they are extremely hard to do. (Exit polling would be a general exception.) The latter (seeking media attention) are simple, and relatively cheap.
This is further complicated by the tendency of people to lie. When attempting to gauge potential audience interest in “Gone With The Wind”, the studio polled people with the following question: “Have you read Gone With the Wind?”, as it was thought that those who had read the book would certainly want to see the movie. It turned out that everyone polled had read the book, at least they said they did, because they didn’t want to admit that they hadn’t. The solution was to ask people: “Do you plan to read Gone With the Wind”. Everyone certainly did, except for those who already had, which they inevitably reported, and now a real(er) number was possible in this poll.
There is an art and science to real, accurate polling. It does not appear to me that the poll cited employed much of either. The sample size, and the +/- error margin (too complicated to explain concisely), and the minuscule methodology note, and the question of who commissioned it, and the “startling findings”, all lead me to the conclusion that 9 out of 10 dentists surveyed (as in, completed questioning) would call this poll nonsense.
A very good and detailed summation, Joe.
But Joe, are these findings really shocking? Gallup has consistently found that 42-43% of the general public doesn’t buy evolution. I’d presume the bulk of those are Republicans. I’ve never seen the national religion question before. Yes, I do find that one shocking. But then look at the support Judge Moore is getting in Alabama…
That doesn’t help the not-Republican crowd much. If we are to believe this survey, that 37% of core Republicans DON’T believe in evolution, but that 42% of the general population DOES NOT either… that means in some vast swathe of not-Republicans, the average is much higher than the general population…
Remember the large number of non registered people who could still self identify as Conservatives, many doing so because they think the GOP isn’t conservative enough.
I am sure that is where you find much of your difference, though I am sure that there are also highly religious left wingers who also question evolution as well.
Sure, you can assign whatever you want to the un-quantified numbers…as long as you are honest and disclose that it is all guesswork and conjecture based on your biases and feelings…
This isn’t about biases and feelings Tex. This is about you trying to make a point by saying that non republicans have a higher rate of disbelief while not mentioning that non-GOP Conservatives are in that other group.
It sounds like you were trying to defend the GOP with your statement.
“…while not mentioning that non-GOP Conservatives are in that other group…”
So are non-GOP liberals, non-GOP ice cream lovers, non-GOP libertarians, non-GOP communists, non-GOP soccer moms, non-GOP radar station in Alaska operators, non-GOP cabbies, non-GOP televangelists, non-GOP Assistant Librarians of Congress, non-GOP ANYTHING.
Don’t you see the point? There is a large swathe of non-GOP keeping the General Population average UP. We don’t know the source, but the source is somewhere…
You’ve merely revealed your own biases (like usual) as to who you think the source is. I’ve merely acknowledged that it’s a somewhat faulty claim to subtly assert a generally higher level of stupidity amongst the GOP-surveyees given the even higher rate of stupidity among the General Population.
Try again however with a new bias-laden assertion, you are good at those.
But the GOP relies on those non registered Conservatives to win, and I would be dollars to donuts that most of the people who reject evolution are likely to support GOP candidates on the ballot even if they are not themselves registered with the GOP.
I am currently registered “No Party” in Louisiana. Who do you think I vote for typically. That is obvious.
The GOP can still pander to the non GOP Conservatives who embrace doubt in evolution. THAT is my point. They can and they do. If you ignore this, well, there is not much I can say for you.
So you were making an unrelated side point?
Got it…
Nope. But I wouldn’t expect you to understand.
By all means, make me understand.
I asserted a simple math problem about how averages work, and if statistic A shows a lower percentage of people from sub-group X believes Y than the percentage of people from the larger population who believe Y, then that means the remainder of the larger population, which is not-X, must believe Y at a greater ratio.
Really simple math.
You initially went off on a tangent about assigning labels to that not-X group, which is unsubstantiated.
So I called you on it and identified that it was primarily your biases at work…. yet again.
Then you pretended like that wasn’t what you were doing by explaining it wholly as conjecture unrelated to the original assertion I made.
Ergo, my final comment.
Please elucidate.
Bias-free this time.
Well Jack, nobody ever went broke because they underestimated the taste or intelligence of the American public. As to assuming that it’s mostly Republicans that don’t buy evolution, I’m not so sure. It would be interesting to see a poll of the general public gauging the ability to DEFINE evolution. As to support for Judge Moore, all parts of the political spectrum are guilty of the “he may be an idiot, but he’s our idiot” rationalization. I think that’s at play there. A poll of sophomore Poli Sci majors at the University of California, San Diego would likely show 90% opposition to the Keystone Pipeline; I’m not sure that most even know what they oppose, or why, but they’re pretty sure they should.
Classic example: Climate change. I have yet to encounter a climate change activist who understands the complexity of the science at all. They just know that other progressives support the doomsday models, so they do too. Does anyone think Nancy Pelosi has any idea what she’s supporting in this area, or why?
It is so bloody annoying to be lectured to about science by people whose last brush with the hard sciences resulted in C+ in 10th grade biology. This includes most politicians, and all actors and actresses.
Regarding global warming, some of them even claimed that increased snow is brought by global warming .
At least creationism is internally consistent…
A) Weather does not mean climate. They are two different things.
B) Do a science experiment for me. Create a system. Put a glass of warm water on a table. Put a thermometer in the water. Place a wire mesh on top of the glass and put a big chunk of ice on top. Now, add heat to the system by blowing a hair dryer directly on the ice. Will adding heat to that system increase the temperature of the water, decrease the temperature of the water, or will it have no effect on the water?
C) Science can also be counter intuitive. Answer this question for me Michael. Say you have to identical ice cube trays. In one you put tap water. In the other you put warmed water. You put both trays in the freezer. At all temperatures of warmer water, will the tap water always freeze first? Yes or no.
Remember, Michael; it’s now “climate change”. And, as the climate is always changing one way or the other, they’re always going to be right! Thus, the gravy train just steams down the tracks forever.
Half the world’s below the fiftieth percentile, Jack.
Don’t I know it. You should see the comments that never make it here.
But to stick to the point: any theories why it appears clear that more of those sub-50 are in the GOP camp?
Sure. Take a break from D.C. for a while. Stay away from Cambridge. Avoid lawyers. Spend some time among the three hundred million people who fill up the country. The work a day folks. The never work a day folks. The churchy people. The people who can’t read. The people who never finished high school. The people who never finished eighth grade. The people who live within five miles of where they were born. The people who don’t have a computer. The people who don’t have a bank account. They’re out there. And there are a lot of them and if they are going to pick a political party, they aren’t going to pick the Democratic one. Did these guys do the same poll among Democrats?
Remember the saw from law school that when addressing a jury you should assume you are addressing a seventh grade class? Those are the people who can get to a courthouse at an assigned date and time and have a mailing address.
Here’s the problem Jack. The US has a two party system. If a person is educated, they are supposed to be Democrats. If a person is educated but skeptical of the perfectibility of humankind via government programs, what’s that person’s alternative? The Republican party. Not a good option but the only one. After de-segregation the Republicans made a deal with the devil and joined up with the Dixiecrats and brought the Southern bible thumpers into the party, thereby gaining much of the south they hadn’t had any involvement with since the end of Reconstruction.
So the Republicans get educated rejectionist non-conformists (ironically) as well as the old fashioned conservative monied types and the Church goers of all stripes (other than the Methodists and the UUers) and the nativists who are skeptical of anything do-gooders are offering.
Unfortunately, what other option is there? It’s either A or B. No substitutions allowed at this restaurant.
Sadly, that’s a good, concise analysis.
This is a happily concise comment.
This is a sadly redundant comment.
I apologize, I had to trash the repeat. My blog has been duplicating comments lately, but I hate to spoil your joke, which made me laugh, and I am grateful.
I couldn’t resist. Glad you got a laugh out of it.
-Jut
OK, it’s happily redundant.
Well put
Thank you one and all. And here I was bracing for JackMarshallization.
I’m SO glad Tex published that Urban Dictionary entry. So glad.
I’m sorry Jack. I shouldn’t have posted the excerpt. I really misinterpreted your previous references to the Urban Dictionary entry as lighthearted self-jabs and assumed you wouldn’t mind me joining in.
In retrospect, being a man also, I should have recognized that certain jokes, primarily those that do poke directly at what we consider to be our life’s work are especially hurtful, even when we take all manner of insults, slings and arrows in other areas of our lives often times with laughter.
Sorry.
Oh, hell, I was kidding. That stuff doesn’t bother me at all. I mean it when I say it proves I’m doing something right. That guy couldn’t win an argument with words, so he vented that way. It’s self-indicting attack. I love these attacks that argue that ethics requires me to be respectful of positions that don’t warrant respect. Ethics requires me to be honest, candid, and not to cave to popular or passionate positions just because it ticks people off.
No apology necessary or appropriate, Tex. I’m glad you posted it.
Good for you Jack. I got a huge kick out of the Urban Dictionary thing. As do you, I’d wear it as a badge of honor. You might want to print it off, frame it and hang it on your wall. “Ethics requires me to be honest, candid, and not to cave to popular or passionate positions just because it ticks people off.” Words to live by, but I try to discourage my forty year old son from getting too carried away at his age. He and his wife need to provide for their family and make their way. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Or as you might say, some things are too dumb to warrant a response.
There have been polls like this on Democrats all over the place lately, like the one that showed that about a third of them profess not to know if Obama is a Christian or not, despite the media freak-out over Scott Walker’s comments. So Walker isn’t alone. He essentially said that he also didn’t care, which is the Democratic position.
That’s a statistical switch. The survey actually speaks nothing about the general population…
Aha. So that explains all my missing comments!
Steven is joking. I have never blocked any of his comments. As much as I’ve been tempted…
It’s not just Texas Republicans – or even American Right-wingers either. It’s some on the Right everywhere.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11432344/Astrology-could-solve-crisis-in-the-NHS-says-Tory-MP.html
Like treating Cancer as if it’s a fungus. Equally effective.
That guy sounds as if he might BE a fungus.
Re: establishing Christianity as a national religion, I agree that it cannot be done because of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. But, that can be amended. I think it is a bad idea to do that for many reasons.
However, I have some sympathy for that point of view, considering the long-standing judicial mauling of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause has gone from something that was supposed to protect people from an overbearing government to something that can be used to eradicate religion in the public sphere. Now, we fight about the word “God” on our money, the word “God” in the Pledge of allegiance, whether a valedictorian mentions God in a speech, whether a book from the Bible can be studied in a literature class, and whether the Ten Commandments can be placed outside a Courthouse (as a symbol of the rule of law, there is probably no more recognizable symbol than the Ten Commandments (or maybe Lady Justice)). The Supreme Court has contorted the Establishment Clause to such an extent that the grievance mongers become apoplectic at the slightest suggestion of anything approaching metaphysics.
Actually, we should make it mandatory that the Ten Commandments be placed in every Capitol building in the country so that Legislators would be reminded about what a concise and comprehensible set of laws looks like, at least compared to the convoluted mess they draft.
-Jut
Ha Ha Ha!
1. “You shall have no other gods before Me.” How is this relevant to a court of law? Are you suggesting the Judge should be treated like a God? Or the Justice System as a whole?
2. “You shall not make idols.” Ditto — irrelevant.
3. “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.” Still waiting to write something other than ditto.
4. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Ditto. (Although most courts ARE closed on Sunday, so I guess they are being consistent, or perhaps lazy.)
5. “Honor your father and your mother.” A good policy really, but I still have to go with ditto. And if you’re a kid in family court, usually you’re there because the family is dysfunctional and/or there is a divorce pending.
6. “You shall not murder.” Yes, but you’re in court to decide whether or not you are “guilty” of murder. The court isn’t there to tell you not to do it, that’s the legislature’s job.
7. “You shall not commit adultery.” This is no longer a crime, and is irrelevant in all divorce proceedings unless there is a valid prenup listing it as grounds for less money.
8. “You shall not steal.” Again, legislature’s job. The court only decides guilt.
9. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Finally! Something relevant to what happens in court. This is covered during the witness oath, but if you want it in front of the courthouse to0, I have no objection.
10. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” This is my favorite one — but really, there is nothing illegal about desire and jealousy. I can covet your ox all day long without ever needing to appear in a court of law.
To quote and slightly alter your comment to deery yesterday: “Thank you Beth for saving me from having to reply substantively.”
I had already started. We tend to frame the 10 Commandments as moral rules of conduct using the prohibitions against murder, theft, adultery and lying as the core, but in truth it’s primarily a religious document, demanding respect and loyalty to a particular deity, and thus wholly inappropriate for a national government’s endorsement.
To respond to both Jack and Beth, yes, the Ten Commandments are primarily viewed as a religious document. But, that is because the notion of a separation of church and state is a relatively new notion.
However, the other perspective was given to me by my law school professor in property class. She was Jewish for what its worth. What Moses did was he handed down laws to the people. He was teaching them how to live, and that is what the laws are for. She explained that, as lawyers, we are teachers. One of our tasks is to teach people the rules for living in society. It was the role of Moses as a lawgiver that warranted his inclusion on the frieze of the Supreme Court, along with Muhamad,Solon, Lycurgus, Napoleon, King John, Justinian, Confucius, etc.
Notably, Jesus is not present on the frieze. My Property Law professor would agree with his exclusion; to paraphrase her: “Jesus was a good lawyer, but he was not a lawgiver.”
-Jut
Here is an interesting article touching on the issue of the Supreme Court frieze:
http://www.dailyrepublican.com/sup_crt_frieze.html
-Jut
The problem is, it’s a set of laws clearly designed for a theocracy. When a nation’s laws tell you who to worship and how, that’s a dictated faith, and it disqualifies the Ten Commandments as legal role model.
>> Ha Ha Ha!
>>> 6. “You shall not murder.” Yes, but you’re in court to decide whether or not you are “guilty” of murder. The court isn’t there to tell you not to do it, that’s the legislature’s job.
>>> 7. “You shall not commit adultery.” This is no longer a crime, and is irrelevant in all divorce proceedings unless there is a valid prenup listing it as grounds for less money.
I despite tit-for-tat rebuttals, so will only focus on these too wallops.
It cannot be denied that that the United States inherits much of its legal traditions from the British. It also cannot be denied that Britain is a historical constitutional monarchy with an established Christian Church. Thus, in British law, God himself is the supreme authority, because the Church crowns the monarch.
The United States deliberately departed from this formal establishment, but even in our cultural ethos, “We are endowed by our creator…” with the right to self government. It is thus absurd to deny their is any historical influence of the 10 Commandments.on our legal traditions. (It would also be absurd to deny the influence of Roman law and Greek law, or the Code of Hammurabi, etc).
This is not an endorsement of blindly posting the 10 Commandments in Courthouses and Capitols everywhere. If anything, the aforementioned Supreme Court frieze is a better model if anything were to be posted: the theocratic commandments are omitted; the remainder are basic ethical tenants that are foundational to the British law system.
With regard to “Adultery” no longer being illegal, or it being the “Legislatures” duty to tell people not murder, this misses the point entirely. The Courts look at legislative intent in light of legal tradition; unless the legislature clearly intended to contradict established norms, precedent is assumed to apply. Laws against “murder” only codify previous norms as a necessary formality of our Justice System. In law, this is “Mallum en se”; wrong in and of itself.
With Adultery, previous traditions making this illegal were deliberately removed. The “Mallum” however, was not undone; indeed, it is indirectly coded by making Marriage itself a legal institution. Fidelity is presumed in all legal relationships, personal or business.
The 10 Commandment reflect deeply intrinsic values that the nation was built upon. They also reflect the direction the country has moved as a dynamic society. In Greece, some Kings were considered gods incarnate. We no longer afford our head of state divine privilege. The Ten Commandments embody an absolute law to worship one God in particular. We as a society no longer require this (indeed, most religions would actually consider the freely chosen worship of the true god the highest form of virtue).
It is impossible to not post the Ten Commandments without some hope of influencing those who read the words. If meant purely to model all future legislation, the intent becomes unethical. The posting is neutral; the content should be viewed as indisputably historic, and the refusal to post solely on religious grounds should be viewed as equally unethical. Even the Scales of Justice were held by a god at one time to judge the sins and merits of mankind. To deny the history of core laws and values is to risk losing the good in these values.
Well thought out and presented, Rich.
I’ve read your last paragraph a few times Rich and to me it seems nothing more than an appeal to romanticism. Yes, there was more religion in previous centuries, and yes it often trickles into government. My response to that is, “so what?” That doesn’t mean it was right then and it certainly isn’t right now.
I have no problems if people follow the Ten Commandments or even if they study them in school (as long as it is a teaching comparative religion/religious history class). But to post them anywhere in the public environment is per se endorsing the religious message behind them. Our government has never been about that and, as you know, many of our immigrants fled religious tyranny in their own countries.
As for the pointing back to England, and in addition to the obvious (so what, we revolted for a reason) looking at England as a religious state doesn’t advance your argument. England (today one of the most atheist countries around) was historically politically entangled with the Roman Church and then of course the Church of England, but since the 16th C. it was because of expedience not devoutness. I don’t really think this has anything to do with the main point though so I’ll end it there.
As for morality and legality, of course we have to educate the populace — but to suggest that it requires religious backing is dangerous, wrong, and goes against everything this Country was founded upon.
I don’t know what country you call your own, Beth, but it’s not any version of America I know of outside San Francisco and Greenwich Village. You betray your elitist (and thereby atheistic) leanings with you “educating the public” mantra. That one always gives them away.
I think the public should be educated about our LAWS Steven — we don’t learn them via osmosis.
My elitist leanings? Ha — if you only knew. Let me “appeal to that authority” in that regard. I was raised on a small pig farm (we also had sheep, cattle, turkeys, chickens, ducks, etc.), was President of my 4-H club (for several years), have livestock judging trophies to my name. The midwest hardly is the center of cultural elitism (especially farm country). By the way, my farm agriculture and animal husbandry accomplishments list could go on and on, but that’s boring, suffice it to say that if the apocalypse comes, you probably want to be in my tribe.
I also went to public school and spent more than the average citizen’s time in church.
So if by elitism you mean book learnin’, well I have my fair share of that, but I mostly was self-taught until law school. I also was born atheist, even though I was raised by a very religious family. I remember sitting in church at the age of 5 thinking that religion was bat-shit crazy — believe me, it is very challenging being raised in a super religious small town when you’re not a believer. I spent a considerable amount of time wishing that I believed in God.
BTW — not to sound elitist, but one can be atheist and not elitist, and vice-versa.
Yessss, Zoe. We’ve all heard the story about your “humble beginnings”. And Nancy Pelosi started out as Miss Lube Job of 1957 in Brooklyn. Would you like to hear my sob story, too? No, I thought not! Now try to understand that there’s a vast difference between equal protection under law and special privileges under law. And there you go with that “educating the public” litany again. That’s one of the marks of someone who’s an elitist in their mind. Whether you’re born rich or poor, the disease is equally catching.
Correction: Miss Lube RACK. Either way, it profanely describes her politics.
I would be proud to be associated with you Zoe — but I think he was being tongue in cheek.
He thinks I’m a Statist because I think people should be informed about laws. He, on the other hand, believes all babies are born with thoughts of God, Country, the Bill of Rights (he thinks they should stop at 10), and (eventual) heterosexual sex running through their blood. I’m not sure what that labels him, but “stereotypical” Republican comes to mind.
Yup. Got your post mixed up with Zoe’s. Actually, your snide little attempt at propaganda is stereotypically leftist… and every bit as elitist as Zoe’s maunderings.
Come to think of it, I’ve never seen you together…
Together? We’re just good friends.
>>I’ve read your last paragraph a few times Rich and to me it seems nothing more than an appeal to romanticism.
Yes I am fully prepared to concede that my concluding sentence is a sappy appeal to “romanticism”. My response: “So what?”
Is that the best you can do? Avoid addressing the actual arguments I raise, and instead attack a piece of fluff attached to the end?
>> As for morality and legality, of course we have to educate the populace — but to suggest that it requires religious backing is dangerous, wrong, and goes against everything this Country was founded upon.
Is this in reply to my argument? I said that posting the Commandments to advance religion is unethical, here:
>>> “If meant purely to model all future legislation, the intent becomes unethical.”
(That is influence law based on the document’s religious merits)
It is also unethical to refuse posting the document on solely religious grounds. It is entangled deeply within the American legal system, for better or worse. It is a primary source of American History.
To expand beyond, what exactly is offensive about displaying the 10 Commandments? If part of display of legal artifacts, it’s posting has no rational basis to be disputed. Yet, many atheists find it summarily offensive.
Perhaps they believe that its posting “excludes” them… “So what?”
What have they contributed that would merit inclusion within such a display? Cankerous lawsuits against children praying? Snarky attempts to put statues of Satan within the public square? Whiners and wimps are simply not recorded in history.
Many now try to cherry pick quotes from the Founding Fathers, who were extremely dissatisfied with the Church of England, and try to claim them among their own as devoutly lacking of any faith. This is anti-history; anti-intellectual. The majority of Founding Fathers were devoutly Christian, who, counter-intuitively, tried to build a free nation that did not enforce religious devotion (many modern Christians get this latter piece of history wrong).
Modern installations of the Commandments, I do not dispute, should only be placed within an educational setting to explain its context within history. Even historic installations might benefit from a discrete plaque explaining its context. What is a Courthouse, however, but an educational setting, a primary source itself of civil engagement? If a county chooses to have a legal display, and refuses to post the commands solely because it is a religious document (though there are numerous valid reasons such a display might not be included), then that refusal distorts history, and their is already too much distortion.
People on both sides get history wrong – “So What?”
The United States of America is the greatest nation on earth, in part because it inherited a tradition lasting nearly a millennia of relatively stable government and protected freedoms from England. People need to be accurately know what America is and isn’t, so they can maintain it for future generation. Should it all fall apart, people need to be educated in how it was built before, so that building it again is not so difficult.
Accurately portraying history is key.
(Perhaps, if a group feels excluded by not being included in a display that includes the 10 Commandments, they should be inspired to contribute something meaningful that would get them included.)
They have no problem with occult metaphysics. Christianity, however, scares them. It means that someone- if not before death, afterward- may hold them responsible for their actions.
I hold myself responsible for my own actions.
I might be able to conceal faults and errors from others – but not myself. There are limits to my abilities at self-deception, though it helps to have external critique to check that.
And by what or whose standards do you judge yourself, Zoe?
The survey was an interesting read. I struggle with polls like this, it’s flawed. More than most. It’s an almost ridiculously small sample size, the questions not related to support obviously held an agenda, and it was riddled with typos. (MY favorite was “Tes” instead of “Tea” Party, 15 times)
That said…. I could still believe it. Kinda sad.
I just assumed the question was about the Tes Party, thus explaining the low level of support for it.
Here is another great one Jack. Not only do 29% of Louisiana Republicans believe that President Obama is to blame for the federal response to Hurricane Katrina (August 2005), but 44% of them are NOT SURE if it is Obama or Bush who is to blame.
73% of Louisiana Republicans either blame Obama or are not sure if Obama is to blame for the federal government response to Katrina when Obama wouldn’t become President for another 3 years (and change).
http://www.bestofneworleans.com/blogofneworleans/archives/2013/08/21/new-poll-finds-many-louisiana-republicans-blame-obama-for-botched-response-to-hurricane-katrina
All Presidents look alike.
To quote Bull from night court. Ewwwwwkay.
And let us be clear: Barack Obama is not white.
To those that question pollsters and sample sizes that seem low, remember that pollsters make money because they give accurate snapshots (within the margin of error) of the people being looked at for any given time. If they gave bad polling data, it is unlikely that other people would use their business and the business would die.
So while it may seem counterintuitive to believe that 316 is a large enough sample to matter, it likely is good enough for the +/- 5% margin of error.
(Or maybe they used 316 to be ironic…. you know, John 3:16)
In this case, that is probably correct. Even at the extreme end of the error range in the most favorable direction, almost half of the Republican “base” would still be predicted to favor establishment, which is frightening.
What is heartening, is that only a very small portion of Republicans vote in the Primary; what is very disheartening is the disproportionate influence these nuts thus have in choosing the candidate.
Perhaps the entire Party ought be declared dunces for ceding this control?
316 might be good enough for a college assignment, but you can’t possibly avoid the law of small numbers with that polling base. you just can’t. Your comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding on how statistics are gathered.
The margin of error formula is the square root of p(1-p)/n, multiplied by 1.96. In this formula, p represents the percentage of the sample size compared to its population, n represents the total population of the respondents’ pool, and 1.96 is the standard deviation for a 5% error rate.
316/150,000,000 = .0003%
(.000003(.999997)/150,000,000)*1.96 rooted.
1.97989601747e-7
That margin of error is so outrageous, it shouldn’t even be considered a poll. Snapshot. Google how to calculate margin of error, they NEVER use less than a percent of the population.
My comment was about their business practices…. and that if they produced bad results they would be unlikely to remain a polling company very long.
Unless their polls produce the value people are willing to pay for…
which I’d submit leftists would gladly shell out beaucoup cash for polls that can trash righties…
Bullshit. Companies make good lucre pushing bad polls done on the cheap. How good the information is does not depend on how much someone will pay for it, it depends on following accepted mathematical practises. This didn’t.
Well, the Cantor campaign is on example of that. They had Cantor winning in “internal polls”. So polls can be wrong.
But on the whole, polling companies are going to want correct results.
Polling essentially falls under the general heading with Journalism-
Communicating data.
And it succumbs to exact same flaws that journalism succumbs to.
I should clarify that: The margin of error is .000000197989601747, and an acceptable margin is around 3.
Uh. Doesn’t smaller margin of error = better?
Isn’t .000000197989601747 smaller than 3?
I have two confessions to make. First off: I flubbed the math… I should have rooted before I multiplied by the standard deviation. (the real math still came out to .00000028, which isn’t very different, but I was still wrong) Second off, Margin of error is the expected error rate in collection or counting, that is to say that the higher the count, the more likely someone didn’t understand the question, or someone tallying made an error. This has absolutely nothing to do with adequate sample sizes. So yeah. A smaller margin of error is better.
Can you link me some educational items on this. I’m really confused now.
You gave a margin of error formula above, in which one variable is directly related to sample size, in which a larger sample size decreases margin of error. But now you say it has nothing to do with adequate sample sizes.
I really am confused now.
Margin of Error is effected by the sample size, and the smaller the sample, the larger the Margin of Error, but I misapplied it, I should have brushed up on my stats textbooks before I commented, and I should have put more effort into it. What MoE looks at is the fraction of people who answered “A” as opposed to “B” or “C” out of the polled population, and the larger the population is, the smaller the MoE becomes.
As an example, 50% of the 300 people in the survey answered A.
MoE = (((.5*.5)/300)rooted)*1.96 = 0.0565 or a 5.6% MoE
If you adjust the mat so that only 25% answered A
MoE = (((.25*.75)/300)rooted)*1.96 = 0.049 or a 4.9% MoE
What that shows is that the closer a poll is to an even 50/50 split, the higher the MoE is.
But if you increase the sample size to 1000, where 50% answered A:
MoE = (((.5*.5)/1000)rooted)*1.96 = 0.0309 or 3.1%
The MoE decreases. This is where the law of large numbers comes into play. The higher the population, the lower the expected impact of errors.
The reason I think the sample size is too small in this case is that especially with as many variables as the population was offered, the Margin of error is significant. No one received more than 40% support, 40$ has a margin of 5.5%, Rand Paul’s 4% has a MoE of 2.2% Those error rates are material.
Groan. I’m going to have to crunch out those formulas on my own from scratch. It doesn’t make sense to me on the surface why closer to 50-50 splits on answers would have a greater margin of error than other percentage splits within the same size sample / population ratio.
Thanks for the additional information.
I struggled with that too, I can’t think of a mathematical justification for it, so I assume it’s political. If your answer is close to parity, there’s a higher likelihood that the poll matters, for example, if an election poll shows a 30-70 split, a 40 point spread is as close to a sure thing as possible. a 49-51 split is much more important, and I think they want a ‘cover your ass’ function.
Another point to make is that the MoE is a RANGE, “plus or minus”, which means that an MoE of 5% is ACTUALLY 10%.
Link man, he asked for a link! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error#Effect_of_population_size
I question where you got a population of “150,000,000”; presumably you are using the total number of Republicans (very roughly half of all Americans). The poll, however, is among likely Republican Primary voters (nationwide?), which is considerably smaller population.
Well, first off, I have to admit to you, my math was bad, and I used the wrong formula, which I understand drills a fairly wide hole through my argument, but even using the right formula (minimum Sample size) 316 is still light. And after populations of about 100,000, the minimum sample size doesn’t increase. So you pick your number, how many republicans do you think will vote in the primaries?
I would pretty much guarantee that in ANY Republican primary in any state, more than 316 Republicans will vote.
All about that base, about that base, no treble.
Jinx?
Sadly, Republicans are all about that base – and that’s trouble…
Jack,
Don’t blame disbelief (such as in evolution) on willfully ignorant people or what you are calling obtuse people or “dunces.” For a change, try blaming bad explainers, failing to explain persuasively to good thinkers. That blame fits as well for Christians in a society where the numbers of Christians are declining. It works both ways – even with (gasp!) evolution.
I don’t think that’s fair, though. Stephen Jay Gould, for example, was a very good explainer on this topic, and was very visible outside of narrow scholarly forums. Somebody can’t be educated who doesn’t want to.
I was in the Smthsonian once when a religious school class came through, with a teacher explaining the exhibits in Creationist terms. I felt like Charlie Brown in the “Little Known Facts” number in the musical “You’re A Good Man Charlie Brown,” in which CB listens to Lucy completely misinform her little brother. Good grief.
You just said: The teacher you overheard failed to persuade YOU.
But I’m not 12 years old, either.
Nor am I. Gould has not persuaded me.
Most people would rather hear about the latest regarding the Kardashians than this Jay Gould fellow.
Yes, that tells us something, doesn’t it? He was on The Simpsons, you know…
This begs the question- how many of those who believe in evolution came to that belief due to careful study of the facts, as opposed to because it is the “in” thing to do?
I’d say a minority, probably a huge minority. So what? No one can do original research on everything. At some point, we have to accept what wiser people have learned and pass on. This is the logic that leads people to argue that evolution is theoretical because there are no eye witnesses, that dinosaurs aren’t necessarily real because we can’t have seen them.
Evolution isn’t the “in” theory, it is an essential foundation of understanding of the physical world and the universe itself—physics, astronomy, geology, paleontology, genetics. All science falls apart without it.
You overstate the importance of evolution. Its realm is limited to biology. It has nothing to do with physics, astronomy, or geology.
Not true. Those sciences lead relentlessly to evolution, and vice-versa. How do you think it is that we know that the world is old enough for evolution to take place?
” that dinosaurs aren’t necessarily real because we can’t have seen them.”
I gotta admit, I have never heard that one before. It is pretty silly, almost as silly as “God put those bones there to test our faith”. Uhmm. Sorry, I failed.
I have mentioned that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, haven’t I, in spite of Bishop What’s-his-name’s pronouncement.
That was Bishop Ussher, He was a pious man who lived in an era long before geology became a science. In order to guess the age of the world, he went to the Bible, compiled the ages of the prophets and arrived at that conclusion. He had nothing else to go on and probably couldn’t imagine any other means. Naturally, things have progressed significantly since that time. Frankly, I’m as puzzled by Christians still believing in creationism as I am by leftists who swear by astrology, UFO’s and the occult! I get enough of the latter on the History Channel.
No kidding!! I wasn’t denigrating your faith, Steven, nor would I ever. I will, however, denigrate creationism, and Bishop Ussher, or any other belief that flies in the face of known, provable, demonstrable fact. Clearly, I am not a believer, but I will go to war to defend your right to be.
I didn’t think you were denigrating my faith, Dragon. I was just offering a little background.
That’s good. We agree on too many things to get crossways on that.
As am I. There is nothing in the Bible that is necessarily inconsistent with the Bible Creation story, as William Jennings Bryan admitted, without wanting to, to Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Trial.
In medieval times, higher education and scientific inquiry were only starting to revive. I might note here that many of the most distinguished scientists of the Renaissance were devout Christians and some of them of the clergy. It took a while, however, for geology and paleontology to develop into sciences and disprove the “young earth” concept.
What is so fascinating is that evolution theory predated so many discoveries that supported it, like DNA.
I’ve never seen the argument by a vocal few that the concept of an old earth, the progression of life and an infinite universe in any way diminishes the glory of God’s Creation. To me, it only magnifies it. As they said long ago, the glory of the heavens proclaims God’s majesty.
I have heard and read many theologians who say this. The battle against evolution is a major factor in the undermining of support for religion generally in the 20th Century, and was a catastrophic blunder that religious leaders should have seen and addressed.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272509776_EFFICIENCY_OF_AN_OPTIMIZED_EVOLUTIONARY_ALGORITHM_FOR_LOCATING_MINIMUM_ENERGY_CONFORMERS
That’s a 1-page poster, aimed at a lay audience. Well, one not familiar with Genetic Algorithms, and Meta-Genetic Algorithms, only the Quantum Physics involved in determining preferred molecular shapes (minimum energy conformers). Feel free to peruse it.
Biological Evolution is to me just a special case of Evolution Theory, and not a particularly interesting one at that.
My experimental results wouldn’t be possible without it being true, so “belief” isn’t required, any more than “belief” in Gravitation Theory is required when sending payloads into space.
I read the abstract, and decided to skip the body of the article. Sounded intriguing, but I bluntly could not have followed it, and I do not have the math skills to truly understand you analysis. I hope you were not serious about it being for a lay audience, as I consider myself such, and I would have been lost.
Needless complication. The progression of life on Earth is mainly a matter of the fossil record.
True. However, I find other branches of science to be interesting as well, but I’m no Steven Hawking. Lot of it is beyond my current understanding, much as I regret that.
Love astronomy.
There is no “body”, it’s a 1-page poster, the abstract is all there is. The “full text” just adds some clarifying diagrams and references.
There *are* some full papers that are rather more heavy going.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263959297_Optimization_of_a_Genetic_Algorithm_for_the_Functionalization_of_Fullerenes
But unless you’re a computational chemist, the jargon that has to be used (π-Hückel theory etc) is so esoteric that its meaning is obscure,to say the least.
I co-authored it, being responsible for the Genetic Algorithm bits. But the chemical physics bits make my eyes water. Unfortunately, there’s no more simple way of explaining this stuff in detail.
In summary though – yes.
We’re trying to find out stuff about “Buckeyballs” – spherical carbon molecules – that have imperfections in them that distort the spherical shape. We don’t know how to design the best investigative tools to do this, but we can evolve them.
The paper describes method and results.
More power to you, Zoe. I have great admiration for your knowledge and research ability. Unfortunately, my mind just doesn’t work that way (which is better than saying ‘I’m not smart enough’), but I am glad yours does.
In that particular paper… at least two of the contributing authors would not be permitted to use a public restroom in Texas, due to genetic pollution.
It’s not that Scientists have a greater rate of being Intersex than the general population – as far as we know. It’s that being curious critters, they’re more likely to have genetic tests just to find out more about themselves.
I can understand the computational chemistry stuff, but for the life of me, I do not understand the great, compelling reason for this Republican legislation regarding chromosomal purity and access to public toilets. But then, I never did understand Segregation under the Dixiecrats either.
However, compelling it must be, with robocalls and TV ads in 8 Red states over the last year, 4 campaigns currently underway. A potload of money is coming in to it. About a hundred cities and counties are threatened with having decades-old existing local protections for Intersex and Trans people removed, dozens already have.
Perhaps that’s because you live in an abstract universe where people can actually get genetic digression off of toilet seats, the term “intersex” isn’t synonymous with insanity and unicorns crop the grass in your back yard.
Well yes, I do.
The legal definition here in Australia is:
intersex status means the status of having physical, hormonal or genetic features that are:
(a) neither wholly female nor wholly male; or
(b) a combination of female and male; or
(c) neither female nor male
Nothing to do with “insanity”, though if you believe on religious or ideological grounds that such a thing does not and cannot exist, then your conclusion makes some perverse kind of sense. Like concluding that those who claim to reside in Alaska must be insane, if your religion says that that state does not and cannot exist.
Such a denial of obvious fact would be pathological, wouldn’t you say?
No, it’s not. Such genetic mutations are so rare as to be negligible. It’s really quite simple, Zoe. No matter what fruitcake notion you may be entertaining for one reason or another, your sex is determined at the moment of conception. If you inherit a Y chromosome, you’re a boy. If you don’t, you ain’t! Got it? At last?? Now try to get yourself off this fixation with sick, dysfunctional people who can’t handle a normal relationship or come to terms with basic realities of life.
Repeating a falsehood doesn’t make it true.
Perhaps you could explain what is this magical, mystical power of a Y chromosome? Now a Y chromosome usually has an SrY complex on, and that usually causes masculinisation – but sometimes doesn’t, and other gene sequences sometimes do. The SrY complex can also be translocated on other chromosomes, including the X one.
A Y chromosome lacking SrY can’t cause masculinisation. Yet somehow you say that it causes someone to be a boy anyway, because……..?
Men are usually taller than women too. Saying that a “Y chromosome makes you a boy, otherwise girl” makes just as much sense as to say “those above average height are male, below female”, no more and no less.
As for sex defined at conception – that would mean identical (monozygotic) opposite sexed twins can’t exist, yet they’re common enough so that everyone knows about them.
Even if you don’t personally believe in this “biological science” stuff, it’s not a matter of opinion, but fact.
As for “negligible” – when you’re making universal statements like “all swans are white, without exception, by definition” then a single counter-example would disprove the statement.
I’ve shown that in some places, the number of counterexamples is 2%, so many that it’s obvious to everyone – except those who would not see, even if it were 99%.
I agree though that having a Y chromosome usually makes someone male, except for the many times when it doesn’t.
Repeating a basic fact of nature indeed doesn’t make it true by itself, Zoe. Nature itself does that. I’m only pointing it out. Your own repetition of junk science verbiage, on the other hand, doesn’t make it one whit more relevant.
There’s nothing “mystical” about the Y chromosome. It merely determines the sex of the person upon conception. Something had to, as the male/female distinction is so important to the survival of the species. This is somethiing reflected in all the higher forms of life, a fact which normal people acknowledge from life experience and which all the leftist theorists cannot deny without making mealy mouthed idiots out of themselves.
I hope you both will forgive my ignorance, and realize that, because of it, I have no intention of joining this discussion, as informative as I find it. However, I do have a couple of questions for both of you. A number of years ago, a female runner in the Olympics was found, on testing, to be XXY. Observationally, she was as female as Marilyn Monroe, at least, what could be observed on TV as good taste prevented her from stripping naked (not to mention the FCC). So, my questions:
1) Would this law prevent her from using a women’s bathroom, even though it would take a genetic analysis to uncover this “abnormality”?
2) Is it, in fact, an abnormality? What is the rate of occurrence of this situation?
3) Sorry, something else occurred to me. Is there such a thing as an XXY with MALE characteristics?
I am asking this for informational purposes only. I probably could find this information on my own, but I’m too lazy.
Well… that’s always a tough question as there are so few of those three chromosome types around- thank goodness! Having a male one tacked onto her would undoubtedly give her an advantage over the other contestants. However (as they say), if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck…! If this person was physically female, then she should be treated as such. Obviously, she thinks of herself as one and should. I would say that such cases should be taken individually. My contention has always been with those who proclaim themselves as being of the sex they’re not, pathetically and obscenely trying to live out that fantasy and then trying to force others to recognize that fantasy as real. This doesn’t appear to be such a case.
Thank you, Steven. I’m having to rely on an increasingly fragile memory (not, I hope, Alzheimer’s) but I believe her physical exam was “normal female”, until they ran the gene scan.
I guess getting pregnant is the proof of the pudding. Does it take a YYX to fertilize an XXY? Maybe one of Zoe’s “researchers” can say!
SMP wrote:
At last we have a meeting of minds.
Do we?
Regarding genetic digression – off toilet seats, no. Being pregnant with a male child, or having a bone marrow transplant, yes.
Dawe G.S et al (2007) Cell Migration from Baby to Mother Cell Adh Migr. Jan-Mar; 1(1): 19–27.
Ikoma T. et al (2009) Bone marrow-derived cells from male donors can compose endometrial glands in female transplant recipients Am J Obstet Gynecol. Dec;201(6):608.e1-8
Genetic digression exists. Hence papers like this.
Frydman, R. et. al. (1988) Pregnancy in a 46 XY patient. Fertil. Steril., 50:813-814.
Sauer, M.V., et. al. (1989) Successful twin pregnancy after embryo donation to a patient with XY gonadal dysgenesis. Amer. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 161:380-381.
Kan, A.K.S., et. al. (1997) Two successful pregnancies in a 46, XY patient. Hum. Reprod.,12(7):1434-1435.
Selvaraj, K., et. al. (2002) Successful pregnancy in a patient with a 46, XY karyotype. Fertil. Steril., Aug.; 78(2):419-420.
Dumic M et al (2008) Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Jan; 93(1): 182–189.
By all means continue believing that it’s everyone else who is insane, or lying, not you. Reality doesn’t care what you believe, or don’t believe. Eppur se muove
The funniest thing…
HB1747 makes it a crime for any woman with a female ID to use a male restroom. So while nearly all women can’t legally use male facilities now, Trans women who have been unable to correct their IDs can.
HB1748 makes it a crime for any woman with any Y chromosomes to use a female restroom, and more importantly, makes it a felony for any facility provider to allow her to. We now know that many women who have ever been pregnant with a 46,XY foetus – even if miscarried in the first few weeks, so she doesn’t know it – may have some 46,XY cells in their bodies, and likely does.
See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633676/
So any woman who has ever had sex – with a man at least – since the last time her genes were checked may well qualify. HB1748 would also prohibit most Trans women, and all Intersex women with CAIS or Swyer syndrome, and most with 3BHSD, from using female restrooms of course, even if Lesbian.
In order to safely comply with this bill, and avoid the chance of committing a felony, restroom proprietors would have to ensure that only women who have not had straight sex after their last karyotype would be allowed to use female facilities. In practice, certified Genetically Pure Gold Star Lesbians are the only ones now legally considered female enough to be allowed in women’s restrooms, a great victory for the Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist Lesbian cause.
Maybe someone in the Texas GOP would like to tell Rep Riddle of these consequences, for while I might be wrong, I think they’re most likely unintended.
You realize that everything you just wrote was pure gibberish, right?!
This really is one stupid, ignorant, unnecessary law.
You could also fit all these genetically afflicted people in a broom closet with room to spare! Nature makes an occasional mistake. That we know. But that isn’t even the issue, is it?
Don’t know that I have ever met a left-handed red head. Thank you for the information. Very helpful.
SMP wrote:
Therefore, I’ll repeat it again: Junk Science. Just because some guys want to spiel a biochemical version of the Piltdown Man for fun, profit and politics doesn’t mean that everyone is obligated to accept it at face value. That’s nearly the equivalent of the feminist mantra that any psychological difference between men and women is cultural. That’s truly “Flat Earth” equivalency, just as your example is. Nature is what it is and no amount of modern day lysenkoism is going to change it. There is male and there is female, Zoe. Get used to the concept, because it’s not going away.
SvP wrote:
Taking just Texas, pop about 20 million or so… it’s about 1 in 450. 1 in 300 men aren’t XY, 1 in 600 women aren’t XX.
So we’re looking at about 45,000.
Restrict it to only those Intersex men without Y chromosomes, and only those women with Y chromosomes, and it’s still around 10,000, just under. Just in Texas alone. There’d be around 400-500 46,XX men with CAH for example. A larger number of 46,XY women with CAIS. Add those 46,XX men with De La Chapelle syndrome, those 46,XY women with Swyer syndrome, and all the others – then over 8,000 certainly.
Add transsexual people – maybe another 5,000-6,000. They’re rarer, they just get publicised more..
I know in Texas everything is bigger, but you’d need a pretty big broom closet even for Texas.
I rather doubt all that, Zoe. With that level of genetic mutation, we’d find ourselves living in the X-Men universe! Once again, though, it doesn’t address the issue.
SMP wrote
How would you know? I mean, it would be nice to have superpowers, but I’m afraid that’s not part of it, worse luck. No, the only “invisibility” we have is that we don’t look much different – if at all – from the usual. Until recently, with ID databases and so on, we didn’t stand out. Until the Internet, neither the medics nor we ourselves had put two and two together to realise just how many of us there were.
But the persecution’s the same, yes. Where do you think the writers got some of the ideas?
Are you claiming that these theories are valid because of the “revelations” of the internet? I can testify that the internet is a wonderful instrument when it comes to accessing data in a timely manner. But there’s more to it than that. As a trained investigator (and a true scientist is one as well), I can tell you that the correct process is the collection, correlation and classification of evidence into a working scenario. Certainly, you rarely pin down every detail and- absolutely- you never proceed with a predetermined goal in mind. But you build on a factual basis and, through growing familiarity with your case, learn to spot inconsistencies and factors that simply fail to make sense.
I’m not a professional scholar, Zoe. Nor have I ever had any inclination to become one, as I prefer to live in the real world- with all its hazards and drawbacks- because I realize that such a cloistered environment subjects one to a strong peer pressure, a groupthink mentality and an inflated sense of self-worth. That’s an anathema to true, honest inquiry. In our benighted day and age, the once existent scholarly proscription against this and the ideal of the quest for knowledge as a reward unto itself is rarely even given lip search, much less observed in practice. That’s why so many scholarly claims these days have been outed as deliberately manufactured nonsense. The collapse of standards is reflective of the increasing decadence of the society of which these institutions are supposed to serve.
SMP wrote:
It was exactly this method that led us to come to the conclusions we have done.
It’s “common sense” that those little lights in the sky at night are just that, little lights. Certainly not large balls of hot gas unimaginably far away.
But the evidence says otherwise, and going on about
doesn’t help.
If there’s evidence that these thousands of papers, on stellar formation or biology, are incorrect – let’s see it. Because “common sense” doesn’t cut the mustard, and unevidenced accusations of political bias, dishonesty, and the like in either case aren’t helpful.
Ask yourself – is there any amount of evidence that would change your mind? Any more than there’s any amount of evidence that would change the mind of a Flat Earther? Or is it a matter of “I know what I know, that’s it”.
Since that was written, we have more accurate estimates of the number of XX men and XY women based on gene tests of newborns, but at least even then we were in the right ballpark.
Source:http://www.isna.org/faq/y_chromosome
Now if that’s wrong – please show me the experimental evidence contradicting it. Or is it something that you “just know”? because… well, just because.
I’m not surprised to see you drawing false analogies, Zoe. Actually, speculating that the stars were actually distant suns was no great leap of logic and required no government funded program. The ancient Greeks thought that one up on their own, along with the likewise logical conclusion that the world was a sphere about 8.000 miles in diameter. Your scholarly heroes, on the other hand, lurking under a smokescreen impressive sounding (but hollow) allegations, are trying to overthrow reality itself. Sorry- but you just can’t remake the universe on a theory that plainly has nothing in common with basic truth.
There’s male and there’s female. There are a few mistakes of nature that are to be pitied. There are a few with glandular malfunctions that can be treated medicinally. There are a few children who get confused, but can be guided through it. And there are some others who take pleasure in their vileness and wish to inflict it on normal people to one extent or another… and to them should come “durance vile”. That also includes those who would forward their vileness for the sake of their likewise vile political agendas.
I don’t have data on 47,XYY fertility.
See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3922324/
Rev Urol. 2013; 15(4): 188–196.
47,XYY Syndrome and Male Infertility
Kim et al
But the few 47,XXY males who have fathered children have always been partners of 46,XX females.
In the literature, a total of 133 births of children from Klinefelter fathers have been reported.
Urologe A. 2011 Jan;50(1):26-32.
[Fertility in patients with Klinefelter syndrome (47,XXY)].
[Article in German]
Kliesch et al
and the 47,XXY females have been made pregnant by 46,XY males.
As far as I know. Do you want more references?
Zoe… are you trying to tell me that you actually thought that to be a serious question? To be one, there must first be an issue that deserves one! Look… I am not without sympathy for those very few people who suffer from a genetic impairment. I wish them well and hope that they can, with God’s help, come to find a place in life for themselves. But if they try to impose upon others in the process- or if those with mental troubles do likewise- then all bets are off. Tolerance and understanding have to be a two way street.
Ask our esteemed blog proprietor. He’s the lawyer.
A lawyer, not THE lawyer.
First a disclaimer…I am a conservative, which should come as no great shock to anybody reading my comments. I do NOT classify myself as a Republican, but I generally vote for Republican candidates and support some, not all, Republican issues. Thus, I am a non-registered Republican, I suppose, but I am a registered voter. God, that was a lot of information, just to say I do NOT buy creationism, evolution is no longer a theory, and has not been for some time, and do not truthfully quite buy the idea of a supreme being, but I am willing to damn near guarantee, if there is one, he AIN’T as described in the Bible. So there. I can also count to ten without taking my shoes off, am literate and a pretty good speller (if a lousy typist). Somebody…ANYBODY…ask me a poll question.
I agree. I never get polled either — I would love to.
I suspect that many of our responses would agree, many would not. I AM a conservative, after all, but you background is wildly different to mine, but yet the same. Odd, that. I still enjoy reading your comments.
I would be tempted to vote Republican again if they got rid of the Bachmann-types.
Oh, God. Tell me there’s not a TYPE.
Air-head, maybe?
Beth, my guess is that the Republicans like her because she’s attractive. I will guarantee you it isn’t because of her smashing intellect.
But you are content voting Democrat despite the Warren types and the Pelosi types?
nice.
Very great retort.
Who ever said I was “content”? Are you “content” voting Republican?
Read what I have written on politics here a million times over — or let me boil it down for you, most of them are liars and cheats.
And it is Democrats who are supposed to have trouble getting photo ID’s?
YIKES…I go to bed, and a trans oceanic Alamo breaks out!
As Howard K. Smith said during the Chicago riot during the 1968 Democratic convention and William F. Buckley memorably said to Gore Vidal, “You call me a crypto-fascist again, you fag, and I’ll punch you in your goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered!”—“Gentlemen! Less heat! More light!”
I think it’s a misappropriation of the Alamo to symbolically apply it to a hopeless defense of ugliness.
A quick poll – please answer Yes or No
Is this a same-sex marriage?
http://www.medicaldaily.com/hayley-haynes-woman-born-without-womb-gives-birth-twin-girls-hormone-therapy-320482
1. In this context, the question is meaningless.
2. “At this point, what difference does it make?”