Sex Abuse Scandal in the Catholic Church

[timber]

Civilization is the proper environment of a rational animal. Living alone in the jungle and becoming feral is not.

I understand. I'm still saying how can you critique what is natural, when your entire existence from cradle to grave is supported and buttressed by Civilization? Your intellect can not help you, unless its connected to rudimentary reality.

[timber]

There's alot of confused jibberish floating around in this thread.
As far as biology is concerned, survival is an organisms fundamental purpose, this is what it is designed for, this is what it does. In the same way that your livers purpose is to filter your blood, the most fundamental purpose of an organism is survival and reproduction. Evolution gives meaning to the organisms behavior through selecting for survival / reproduction. You could maybe argue the organism has some need for promoting good on a metaphysical or spiritual level if you wanted to get really deep into it. The Mississippi River is not an organism, it is a river, it does not struggle for survival, there are no forces of natural selection acting on it... if there are some analogous forces they are very abstract and not very relevant. The analogy is bad.

Firstly I'd like to point out there is a self-identified bisexual person here who took no offense whatsoever to my comments and even agrees with a good bit of what I've said. When I've talked about this topic on the past I've had many self-identified LGBT people who have reacted the same way.

Note that I've never said homosexuality is "unnatural", I've said that it isn't caused by an evolved natural instinct. I've then explained in great detail how many behaviors are not caused primarily by instinct. Depending on the conditions, instinct can be blocked, and when that happens it expresses in ways that are distorted. Instinct can't be turned off, when it's blocked it behaves kind of like water being forced through a firehose. For example, you might be the monkey at the very bottom of a very top-heavy social hierarchy, where the one alpha male is getting all 10 of the female monkeys, and you have no chance whatsoever at reproducing... this can occur for a variety of reasons. It can happen due to habitat destruction - your monkey tribe is confined to very small pieces of land, and you can't go claim your own territory where you're the alpha monkey. Yes this occurs in nature, but the primary cause is not instinct, this is being driven by circumstances... I am not saying homosexuality does not occur in nature, it occurs in nature. What homosexuality definitely does not do is increase the probability of successful survival and reproduction. We know that because that is impossible... And due to that, it could not possibly drive the evolution of animal instinct. That is all I have said.

I am also not saying that we should scorn homosexuals. Actually I am providing homosexuality with a very realistic explanation for its occurrence, which is something that has been lacking for very a long time. Instead people usually have resorted to hurling emotional abuse while insisting that very weak genetic evidence is what is 100% accountable for the condition... despite the fact pretty much no other psychological condition works that way, twins aren't both effected, and a number of other things. You could see my comments on evolution as an actual solid grounding that justifies your sexuality if you wanted to. These are just facts, you actually are the one deciding to interpret them in the way that you see fit.

I don't really want to talk about it in this thread particularly , but are aware of some of the studies discussing the genetic advantages to having gay offspring? Its a huge topic with a lot leg work done already. I also find it interesting the notion that its the Mother and her epigenetics that might be casual to her offspring's sexuality while they develop in the womb. Of course its not anyone's choice, and if you choose to think otherwise, you would in my mind be choosing purposeful ignorance.

This notion of gene survival is also no longer in vogue. I mean Dawkins did a lot of work, but the field has moved past this point.

What homosexuality definitely does not do is increase the probability of successful survival and reproduction.

Please research this, before you affirmatively claim it. I refer you back to the first sentence. There is some speculation that gay siblings, uncles, aunts, are all advantageous. Further, why cant a gay person have sex with a woman, or a gay woman have sex with man at least once enough to produce a child? Gayness is not altogether directly inheritable from parent to offspring. So, something is going on, but its not a direct trait, like dominant or recessive genes.

I'm not sure you are aware, but I personally know a dozen gay men and woman with their own genetic children. So.

If gayness played no role, purpose, usefulness, from a genetic standpoint of survival of the species, then it would not exist, as per your argument. Life has had millions of years to wipe it out, or not even create it in the first place. So, it stands to reason that it is at very least neutral a difference and has no net negative effect on survival of the genes - and therefore species. So that blows the moral arguments out of the water as well, if "the natural state of affairs" was what morality on this topic stems from (and it does for everything else sexual that "the church" seems to protect example: union between man and woman). I guess you could say that disease associated with sodomy in preindustrial era, is enough of a reason to think homosexuality is destructive, but I would point out that disease also effects straight people just as much, HIV in North America and Europe notwithstanding.

As a last point here, I get a kick out of people that think homosexuals played no role in the advancement of Civilization. We wouldn't even be on computers right now without a gay person. And that extends to every single piece of anything we have going for us throughout all of history. I'm not saying gay people are responsible totally, but they have played their role. So from a cultural technological standpoint, gay people are very important for the survival of Civilization. That's just a straight up fact.

Deal with it.

[chriscorey]

okay Im getting drawn into this stupid fucking conversation again, but okay.



Right. This sounds like actually a pretty ill conceived thought. I'm surprised this is coming from a University website. What's with this "of course not"? There is no back up statement, its just a pure hypothesis statement disconnected and without any argumentation. Yup, yup, very convincing.



I can understand this. Stands to reason. I think the clergy are held to the highest standard, and make the headlines even more as they are supposed to be above these worldly issues.



Not much to say here. But I wonder, what is this "situational generalist" thing, if not a crime of opportunities? You are saying that predators are premeditating their advancement into the clergy, and maybe that is going on, but it seems that they are mostly doing these crimes because the opportunity is arising.



Good. But I think society has swung the other way now. Its starting to assume all men are predators until proven innocent. Can male role models even exist nowadays with out assuming they are some kind of sexual predator in waiting?

There's no proven evidence to suggest celibacy turns people into pedophiles. It's silly to think people who are sexually attracted to the adult human form suddenly morph into pedophiles. That they lose all morals and start fucking kids. They'd masturbate or seek out other adults to have sex with before hurting a child. Pedophilia is classified as a mental disorder and nowhere does it say it can be caused by celibacy. And I'm not just talking about the clergy, I'm talking about any person who decides to be celibate.

Not only are you suggesting that celibacy can cause a mental disorder, you're also suggesting people lose all morals due to celibacy. There's no scientific evidence to back this.

It's a very dark way to see humanity(for me at least) and we're going to have to agree to disagree.

[Metamorph]

I understand. I'm still saying how can you critique what is natural, when your entire existence from cradle to grave is supported and buttressed by Civilization? Your intellect can not help you, unless its connected to rudimentary reality.

Good, because it is. Anyways, who says civilization itself can't be natural for humans? Though that almost feels like a meaningless statement without further analysis, that doesn't mean it is. People think disjunctivism is a meaningless statement, but it's really not since it implies other things that aren't meaningless. Sometimes the simple answer is not a simple as it looks.

[Metamorph]

There's no proven evidence to suggest celibacy turns people into pedophiles. It's silly to think people who are sexually attracted to the adult human form suddenly morph into pedophiles. That they lose all morals and start fucking kids. They'd masturbate or seek out other adults to have sex with before hurting a child. Pedophilia is classified as a mental disorder and nowhere does it say it can be caused by celibacy. And I'm not just talking about the clergy, I'm talking about any person who decides to be celibate.

Not only are you suggesting that celibacy can cause a mental disorder, you're also suggesting people lose all morals due to celibacy. There's no scientific evidence to back this.

It's a very dark way to see humanity(for me at least) and we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Yeah, even I originally had it as "celibacy attracts pedophiles" and not "celibacy makes people into pedophiles." But I don't think celibacy does that much to attract them, either. I think it's probably the dogma about original sin and how everyone is born a sinner and Satan is telepathically forcing you to sin but that's OK because even the worst sinner who keeps doing it can just say "sorry" and be saved. The worst sinner isn't the person who got mad and strangled someone. The worst sinner isn't someone who slept around. No, the real worst sinners are rarely considered. But forgiving pedophiles even if they keep doing it as long as they say "I'm sorry daddy" is the endpoint of Catholic dogma as well as Protestant (but not Orthodox or Unitarian,) it's no wonder people don't want to critique it because it would make most Protestants look bad too. So people just hop on the modern sex mania train and poke fun at celibacy instead.

Forcing priests to be celibate seems silly since being an adult male without children should have nothing to do with spiritual knowledge or power, that should come from, you know, the intellect, actions, and the rest of the spirit and not from what's between the legs, but a silly doctrine still doesn't make good people into pedos at all. And probably doesn't particularly attract them since various monks and nuns (including Catholic ones) are celibate and don't have this problem on this scale. No, it's just easy access + not being expected to have a wife + the seal of confessional most likely. Granted, I don't think Catholics should tell murders or even rapes to the police since, if you actually look at what the police as well as the military does, state governments are often even worse, though no one expects them to be saints so they focus on Catholics. I just think they should stop forgiving the same sins over and over behind closed doors without people, you know, actually repenting and stopping doing it. But then they couldn't maintain the dogma that you can't avoid sinning, so they have to let pedophiles keep doing it, otherwise you might also be able to stop telling white lies or overeating, then you'd realize you don't need their one-time symbolic baths or their human sacrifice or spells and they'd be out of business.

[DogOfDanger]

I don't really want to talk about it in this thread particularly , but are aware of some of the studies discussing the genetic advantages to having gay offspring? Its a huge topic with a lot leg work done already. I also find it interesting the notion that its the Mother and her epigenetics that might be casual to her offspring's sexuality while they develop in the womb. Of course its not anyone's choice, and if you choose to think otherwise, you would in my mind be choosing purposeful ignorance.

This notion of gene survival is also no longer in vogue. I mean Dawkins did a lot of work, but the field has moved past this point.

Please research this, before you affirmatively claim it. I refer you back to the first sentence. There is some speculation that gay siblings, uncles, aunts, are all advantageous.

Gene survival is the foundation of evolution, so... I don't know what you mean by that being 'in vogue'.
You're thinking about gene propagation in an incestuous way - if the organism is limited to helping along the genes of its family members it's because it can't branch out & reproduce, it's due to scarcity in the environment... there's no social mixing of genes happening. You're just talking about an extremely restrictive, repressive environment that is blocking successful reproduction. That's exactly what I've been talking about, I'm saying that's the fundamental cause. Genes being weeded out of existence due to their not being adaptive in an environment.
If there were no problems in the environment there'd be no need to sacrifice ones own self-interest to help out aunts / uncles / cousins, you are actually making the case for what I'm saying.
Also... you haven't separated celibacy from homosexuality in regards to these effects. Why doesn't the instinct just turn off in these scenarios where it would be beneficial? Why is it channeled into something else that has no reproductive value? The answer is the instincts can't be turned off like that, because it isn't evolutionary for them to be.
Also... if you're posing a scenario where one set of genes die out so that another can live on... you're imagining this altruistic cooperation of genes, but taking it so far as to dismiss the inherent competition for survival, so... when altruism undermines your very survival it ceases being beneficial. It may be inconvenient for you to see nature as a game of survival... but survival is necessary, go watch a cheetah chase down a gazelle. The alpha male monkey benefits tremendously from the fact he's getting all the female monkey mates, sure, but the other monkeys are dying out, and what you aren't seeing is the broader problem & cause.

It's true the genetic / evolutionary gay explanation has been studied far more than explanations such as environmental or social factors... the latter are generally shunned by stupid people, case in point you / others in this thread. Whats also true is a coherent explanation is still very lacking, usually people have to be forced to accept the explanations.
The dismissal of environmental / social causes is an emotional / social conformity one, not a scientific one... people can come up with all the evolutionary theories they like, what they need is evidence of genetic causality. The genetic evidence is ultimately pretty weak - you'll never get around the twin studies, and they've already searched very thoroughly using supercomputers for this set of gay genes... they only found very complex clusters of genes / epigenetics that have some minor correlations, there is no way of separating out that data from environmental factors or intermediary effects, so.... you're basically talking about coming up with a theory that defies basic principles for an effect that is only weakly supported by evidence.

It's a politically relevant issue, people generally want it to be true, they come up with all sorts of theories but the evidence isn't there. And tbh the explanations never make much sense. Try describing the proposed mechanism - you haven't done that. Show you understand how this works, you've just implied someone has surely figured it out somewhere.
I'll also say that psychology tries to be a science but it is closer to a pseudo science, it has the worst peer-review process of any science, the subject matter itself is very intangible which leaves it open to people affirming their preconceived notions, it's also almost entirely left-leaning people, who also tend to have much lower IQs than other scientists, so... I would not really expect anything except genetic explanations to be taken seriously by psychologists due to what this explanation means to them socially...

Further, why cant a gay person have sex with a woman, or a gay woman have sex with man at least once enough to produce a child? Gayness is not altogether directly inheritable from parent to offspring. So, something is going on, but its not a direct trait, like dominant or recessive genes.

I'm not sure you are aware, but I personally know a dozen gay men and woman with their own genetic children. So.

If this condition is genetically determined from birth, what changed - why did they switch to the different sex? They're technically bisexual in this scenario.
They can successfully reproduce, they do not succeed at the same rate. When we talk about evolution we're talking about net effects over billions of years, where even minor advantages amount to big differences. We're talking about what is responsible for all the complex and refined structure of life, it's not a messy mechanism. And we're talking about evolved instincts. Again, evolutionary forces were there molding the first cells... that then became sponges that evolved into jellyfish, fish, worms, and then animals... all the way along, at every step, every single chemical process that produces life, there was successful reproduction accounting for it. Even very small disadvantages in survival / reproduction mean everything on this scale, this is why your biology is so incredibly refined and sophisticated, this is why your arguments on evolution make no sense... these theories / explanations that you people come up with really just seem to be desperate attempts.

If gayness played no role, purpose, usefulness, from a genetic standpoint of survival of the species, then it would not exist, as per your argument. Life has had millions of years to wipe it out, or not even create it in the first place. So, it stands to reason that it is at very least neutral a difference and has no net negative effect on survival of the genes - and therefore species. So that blows the moral arguments out of the water as well, if "the natural state of affairs" was what morality on this topic stems from (and it does for everything else sexual that "the church" seems to protect example: union between man and woman). I guess you could say that disease associated with sodomy in preindustrial era, is enough of a reason to think homosexuality is destructive, but I would point out that disease also effects straight people just as much, HIV in North America and Europe notwithstanding.

Evolution is a neverending process due to changing circumstances and mutations. You could make the same argument that disease should not exist, and yet disease exists... But what you aren't understanding is that their genes are being weeded out, and that is evolution. I've explained extensively that changing environmental conditions, extinction conditions (or those that mimic them), repressive social conditions, physical disabilities & deformities, etc. all occur regularly in nature. Things dying and failing to pass their genes on is the other half of evolution, whenever you select for something you are choosing not to select something else. The alpha male monkey's genes are being selected over the other monkeys. The other monkeys genes are being weeded out of existence. The choice is based on many factors, and can occur for many reasons...

As a last point here, I get a kick out of people that think homosexuals played no role in the advancement of Civilization. We wouldn't even be on computers right now without a gay person. And that extends to every single piece of anything we have going for us throughout all of history. I'm not saying gay people are responsible totally, but they have played their role. So from a cultural technological standpoint, gay people are very important for the survival of Civilization. That's just a straight up fact.

I think they do advance civilization, but when we talk about evolution and instinct we're not talking about civilization. If anything civilization has stopped evolution from occurring and completely derailed human instincts, not to mention that it's destroying the planet.

Deal with it.

You should take your own advice here, you're beginning to promote anti-evolutionary arguments that are very wanting, out of a desperate need.

Carry onward

[Metamorph]

Gene survival is the foundation of evolution, so... I don't know what you mean by that being 'in vogue'.
You're thinking about gene propagation in an incestuous way - if the organism is limited to helping along the genes of its family members it's because it can't branch out & reproduce, it's due to scarcity in the environment... there's no social mixing of genes happening. You're just talking about an extremely restrictive, repressive environment that is blocking successful reproduction. That's exactly what I've been talking about, I'm saying that's the fundamental cause. Genes being weeded out of existence due to their not being adaptive in an environment.
If there were no problems in the environment there'd be no need to sacrifice ones own self-interest to help out aunts / uncles / cousins, you are actually making the case for what I'm saying.
Also... you haven't separated celibacy from homosexuality in regards to these effects. Why doesn't the instinct just turn off in these scenarios where it would be beneficial? Why is it channeled into something else that has no reproductive value? The answer is the instincts can't be turned off like that, because it isn't evolutionary for them to be.
Also... if you're posing a scenario where one set of genes die out so that another can live on... you're imagining this altruistic cooperation of genes, but taking it so far as to dismiss the inherent competition for survival, so... when altruism undermines your very survival it ceases being beneficial. It may be inconvenient for you to see nature as a game of survival... but survival is necessary, go watch a cheetah chase down a gazelle. The alpha male monkey benefits tremendously from the fact he's getting all the female monkey mates, sure, but the other monkeys are dying out, and what you aren't seeing is the broader problem & cause.

It's true the genetic / evolutionary gay explanation has been studied far more than explanations such as environmental or social factors... the latter are generally shunned by stupid people, case in point you / others in this thread. Whats also true is a coherent explanation is still very lacking, usually people have to be forced to accept the explanations.
The dismissal of environmental / social causes is an emotional / social conformity one, not a scientific one... people can come up with all the evolutionary theories they like, what they need is evidence of genetic causality. The genetic evidence is ultimately pretty weak - you'll never get around the twin studies, and they've already searched very thoroughly using supercomputers for this set of gay genes... they only found very complex clusters of genes / epigenetics that have some minor correlations, there is no way of separating out that data from environmental factors or intermediary effects, so.... you're basically talking about coming up with a theory that defies basic principles for an effect that is only weakly supported by evidence.

It's a politically relevant issue, people generally want it to be true, they come up with all sorts of theories but the evidence isn't there. And tbh the explanations never make much sense. Try describing the proposed mechanism - you haven't done that. Show you understand how this works, you've just implied someone has surely figured it out somewhere.
I'll also say that psychology tries to be a science but it is closer to a pseudo science, it has the worst peer-review process of any science, the subject matter itself is very intangible which leaves it open to people affirming their preconceived notions, it's also almost entirely left-leaning people, who also tend to have much lower IQs than other scientists, so... I would not really expect anything except genetic explanations to be taken seriously by psychologists due to what this explanation means to them socially...


If this condition is genetically determined from birth, what changed - why did they switch to the different sex? They're technically bisexual in this scenario.
They can successfully reproduce, they do not succeed at the same rate. When we talk about evolution we're talking about net effects over billions of years, where even minor advantages amount to big differences. We're talking about what is responsible for all the complex and refined structure of life, it's not a messy mechanism. And we're talking about evolved instincts. Again, evolutionary forces were there molding the first cells... that then became sponges that evolved into jellyfish, fish, worms, and then animals... all the way along, at every step, every single chemical process that produces life, there was successful reproduction accounting for it. Even very small disadvantages in survival / reproduction mean everything on this scale, this is why your biology is so incredibly refined and sophisticated, this is why your arguments on evolution make no sense... these theories / explanations that you people come up with really just seem to be desperate attempts.



Evolution is a neverending process due to changing circumstances and mutations. Their genes are being weeded out, and that is evolution. I've explained extensively that changing environmental conditions, extinction conditions (or those that mimic them), repressive social conditions, physical disabilities & deformities, etc. all occur regularly in nature. Things dying and failing to pass their genes on is the other half of evolution, whenever you select for something you are choosing not to select something else. The alpha male monkey's genes are being selected over the other monkeys. The other monkeys genes are being weeded out of existence. The choice is based on many factors, and can occur for many reasons...


I think they do advance civilization, but when we talk about evolution and instinct we're not talking about civilization. If anything civilization has stopped evolution from occurring and completely derailed human instincts, not to mention that it's destroying the planet.


You should take your own advice here, you're beginning to promote anti-evolutionary arguments that are very wanting, out of a desperate need.

Carry onward

What do you think about the gap in IQ measurements between different races?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Telling somebody God won't properly love them or save them (the supposed supreme being and creator of the universe mind you) unless they completely abstain from sex - it's clear as day if they genuinely listen to that advice, how it can fuck somebody up psychologically. Not like they will go 'Hey, I might as well be a pedo' over night- but it can be another ingredient in the cauldron as it were.

Sexuality is a kind of 'Fi' thing for most people anyway, most of us don't really want to be whores or sluts and we want more to find one special person to fool around with. But you're denying them even that, and telling them that's wrong. Did you really think you could fool God by being private and respectful you little homo? Unella is looking at you hatefully, fag.

idk about them already being pedos and using the church as a cloak of innocence. I'm sure some do that yes, but that doesn't seem very smart as there seems to be better and more clever ways to hide being a pedophile than that. And it clearly does not work. For some reason I didn't consider them using the church to try and cure pedo-ness that was already inside them- I can see that being true, but I still think my way is the most common. It's not like I think all sexual repression is the cause of pedophilia lol but that along with other factors can be the right deadly mixture.

If you view sexuality as bad (even when it's not), then naturally when you express your sexuality it will actually be bad.

In the Love, Victor TV show there's an inspiring moment where a bigoted priest tells the mom of a gay son that she's giving up on God for accepting her son's homosexuality. She then rightfully tells him "Oh, I'm not giving up on God. I'm giving up on you." You go gurl!

[Tallmo]

Yes.

Still, certain religions have central precepts that in order to practise being the "most holy", some kind of repression is required. I think Christianity also has historical left overs from the Medieval era in regards to attitudes about sex and desire. I mean, people were covering piano legs with pants up until fairly recently, like a just over a several generations ago. This is the slow moving dinosaur being dealt with.

It's even expressed in the Christian core myth. Everything is about the spiritual world, Jesus and going to heaven. Either that, or hell. So this is reflected in the life of a catholic priest who has to focus only on the spiritual life and reject sex.

Today we have porn and too much materialism. Have we fallen into the "darkness of matter"?

But Christianity aims high, heaven, that ultimate goal. And you can't expect a religion to be complete, although it would be nice. Jung thought alchemy was more complete because it deals with the dark side also.

Piano legs are interesting. I can imagine them as being indecent.

But all religions have their peculiarities. In pagan religions they used to sacrifice humans. I don't know much about the eastern religions. But I don't see any reason to emphasize the bad sides of Christianity as it is expressed in the core myth. It doesn't have to be perfect, but a connection to a myth is something to be treasured and maybe developed.

I personally have an interest in Christianity because it's part of my tradition and the only religion I have a real connection to. I don't take it dogmatically, but through music, reading the Bible etc. I can maybe make the myth a part of my spiritual life.

[DogOfDanger]

What do you think about the gap in IQ measurements between different races?

I think you have a distorted value system that leads you to see the recognition of differences in IQ as bigotry that should never be allowed, but since this rule requires we deny reality it is just futile and pointless. It is also dumb. For one, IQ predicts success in society, but success in society is not the highest ideal. As I've said many times, society is inherently destructive, fundamentally we are animals, we are meant to be living in mesopotamia... where success is more loosely correlated with IQ, along with other factors like your physical makeup... and where all this excessive complexity is not bombarding your brain constantly. But in modern society a high IQ is increasingly required to thrive; to handle the mental workload and complexity. If you have one... it makes you lucky, but there's not moral superiority attached to that, some very horrible people have been geniuses... and for the intelligence to have social value the person still has to do something useful.
Secondly, I wouldn't equate smarts directly with IQ, I say this because I've known more than one genius whose opinions on things were quite dumb... like their value systems were not coherent. One thing about IQ is it only tests you within a very limited time period.... if you look at the greatest intellectual contributions they were made by people who thought about particular things over their whole lives, and they formed very deep and sophisticated value systems. I know people who don't score too high on IQ tests yet have well formed value systems, so...
Also... usually peoples aspirations don't exceed their abilities...
That being said, IQ correlates well with most of what we think of as intelligence, with alot of measures of social success, and it is well validated.
Denying statistical fact does not make you a good person.
Carry onward

[Metamorph]

I think you have a distorted value system that leads you to see the recognition of differences in IQ as bigotry that should never be allowed, but since this rule requires we deny reality it is just futile and pointless. It is also dumb. For one, IQ predicts success in society, but success in society is not the highest ideal. As I've said many times, society is inherently destructive, fundamentally we are animals, we are meant to be living in mesopotamia... where success is more loosely correlated with IQ, along with other factors like your physical makeup... and where all this excessive complexity is not bombarding your brain constantly. But in modern society a high IQ is increasingly required to thrive; to handle the mental workload and complexity. If you have one... it makes you lucky, but there's not moral superiority attached to that, some very horrible people have been geniuses... and for the intelligence to have social value the person still has to do something useful.
Secondly, I wouldn't equate smarts directly with IQ, I say this because I've known more than one genius whose opinions on things were quite dumb... like their value systems were not coherent. One thing about IQ is it only tests you within a very limited time period.... if you look at the greatest intellectual contributions they were made by people who thought about particular things over their whole lives, and they formed very deep and sophisticated value systems. I know people who don't score too high on IQ tests yet have well formed value systems, so...
Also... usually peoples aspirations don't exceed their abilities...
That being said, IQ correlates well with most of what we think of as intelligence, with alot of measures of social success, and it is well validated.
Denying statistical fact does not make you a good person.
Carry onward

...That is a lot of words to say absolutely nothing, other than some kind of Rousseauian noble savage ideal that really doesn't apply to Mesopotamia of all places. You never stated what you think the cause of the differences is, and you made assumptions I didn't say. Since when did I deny there are differences? I asked about them, that's not a denial. You are one weird dude living in your own head.

[DogOfDanger]

...That is a lot of words to say absolutely nothing, other than some kind of Rousseauian noble savage ideal that really doesn't apply to Mesopotamia of all places. .

Since you made no argument you're probably thinking nothing, but this is not reflective of my argument in any way.
Mesopotamia is where humans came from, it is obviously relevant in a conversation on noble savagery, you little idiot...

and you made assumptions I didn't say. Since when did I deny there are differences? I asked about them, that's not a denial.

We're not pretending this. When you respond to a giant explanation that's highly contentious with a one sentence question bringing up another highly contentious topic, after cozying up to everyone getting offended for a couple pages, it's very clear what your intentions are - you can pretend otherwise but I'm not playing your little games.

You never stated what you think the cause of the differences is,

What? What causes one bird to have slightly smaller cranial capacity than another random bird? Who in the fuck knows? You weren't asking this, the question doesn't even make sense, keep trying.

You are one weird dude living in your own head.

Without the ability to think I wouldn't have been successful in life, I'm actually very lucky. Instead I might have ended up spending years on here worried about offending these dumb little losers...

[Metamorph]

@DogOfDanger Mesopotamia isn't savage at all, though. Mesopotamia was the first civilization. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys that lived in Iraq, humans sprung up in lots of places but the first civilization was in the Fertile Crescent.

I think IQ is a good measurement of intelligence, but based on its correlation with SAT scores, it's probably not innate at all. And if it were, who would care? It wouldn't even matter if some races were smarter than others on average because that says nothing about individual intelligence, nor would it mean anything about evolution since most people have never seen a random distribution in their lives, random distributions can be all over the place. But instead of saying it doesn't matter, you said intelligence is a bad thing because you only need it to live in civilized places unlike Mesopotamia (when Mesopotamia is literally the paragon of a civilized place,) and that's ridiculous.

[DogOfDanger]

@DogOfDanger Mesopotamia isn't savage at all, though. Mesopotamia was the first civilization. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys that lived in Iraq, humans sprung up in lots of places but the first civilization was in the Fertile Crescent.

I think IQ is a good measurement of intelligence, but based on its correlation with SAT scores, it's probably not innate at all. And if it were, who would care? It wouldn't even matter if some races were smarter than others on average because that says nothing about individual intelligence, nor would it mean anything about evolution since most people have never seen a random distribution in their lives, random distributions can be all over the place. But instead of saying it doesn't matter, you said intelligence is a bad thing because you only need it to live in civilized places unlike Mesopotamia (when Mesopotamia is literally the paragon of a civilized place,) and that's ridiculous.

I'll try to be brief, since this conversation is getting pointless.
a) IQ is loosely correlated with SAT scores, it's also correlated with some physiological markers, I read one study showing it correlated with the amount of time it takes an electrical impulse to propagate across a synapse. The flynn effect seems to have stopped in the last few decades ... individual IQ also remains consistent within age groups measured over time. Attempts to increase IQ through training have also consistently failed.
b) mesopotamia is a natural paradise and a natural habitat for humanity. I never said it was a savage place, savage was actually your phrase, but it is definitely a natural habitat for humanity - obviously, since the first civilization formed there. The temperature is perfect, food and water is abundant...
c) I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say: "nor would it mean anything about evolution since most people have never seen a random distribution in their lives, random distributions can be all over the place"
d) I have never said anything remotely like this: "But instead of saying it doesn't matter, you said intelligence is a bad thing because you only need it to live in civilized places"
e) "It wouldn't even matter if some races were smarter than others on average because that says nothing about individual intelligence," - then why are you asking me about it? It does matter if your conversation is about the success of various races in society, though - career success being something that IQ is a good predictor of.

[Poptart]

On average the variation of IQ between family members is greater than the variation between races.

IQ isn’t set in stone, either. We know that prenatal factors and early childhood environmental factors can impact long run life outcomes (including adult IQ)

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Since you made no argument you're probably thinking nothing, but this is not reflective of my argument in any way.
Mesopotamia is where humans came from, it is obviously relevant in a conversation on noble savagery, you little idiot...

We're not pretending this. When you respond to a giant explanation that's highly contentious with a one sentence question bringing up another highly contentious topic, after cozying up to everyone getting offended for a couple pages, it's very clear what your intentions are - you can pretend otherwise but I'm not playing your little games.

What? What causes one bird to have slightly smaller cranial capacity than another random bird? Who in the fuck knows? You weren't asking this, the question doesn't even make sense, keep trying.

Without the ability to think I wouldn't have been successful in life, I'm actually very lucky. Instead I might have ended up spending years on here worried about offending these dumb little losers...

You don't offend me. Sure, I think you're an asshole with the 'You're not putting it in the proper hole!' 1950s homophobia - but that's a lot different than being personally affected by it or losing sleep over it. Use your brain and logic. If me or Coeruleum were afraid or offended of you, we wouldn't respond to your posts.

If somebody truly is an intimidating and logically bad ass str8 male, I will just avoid interacting with them altogether. Duh.

[Metamorph]

On average the variation of IQ between family members is greater than the variation between races.

IQ isn’t set in stone, either. We know that prenatal factors and early childhood environmental factors can impact long run life outcomes (including adult IQ)

That is all true. That's why I asked "what do you think... ?" and not "there's no such thing as... !" I could swear most people have never seen a true random distribution in their lives. People assume purely random distributions and everything being equal are the same when randomness is generally all over the place, not evenly spaced out.

[Metamorph]

e) "It wouldn't even matter if some races were smarter than others on average because that says nothing about individual intelligence," - then why are you asking me about it? It does matter if your conversation is about the success of various races in society, though - career success being something that IQ is a good predictor of.

Who gives a rat's behind about the success of various races? Let's say there's a man Billy Bob who's white, and even though white people are on average more successful, Billy Bob is white trash who lives in a trailer park. What does the success of white guys such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates do to help out Billy Bob? I could not care less about the success of races. That is just statistics. Statistics don't affect me nor anyone else. Billy Bob doesn't care a whit about Steve Jobs and Bill Gates just like Jamal doesn't care a whit about Oprah. Billy Bob cares about Billy Bob and Jamal cares about Jamal. That's it.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Who gives a rat's behind about the success of various races? Let's say there's a man Billy Bob who's white, and even though white people are on average more successful, Billy Bob is white trash who lives in a trailer park. What does the success of white guys such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates do to help out Billy Bob? I could not care less about the success of races. That is just statistics. Statistics don't affect me nor anyone else. Billy Bob doesn't care a whit about Steve Jobs and Bill Gates just like Jamal doesn't care a whit about Oprah. Billy Bob cares about Billy Bob and Jamal cares about Jamal. That's it.

lol you made me laugh so hard people around me IRL were like "What's going on"

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but yeah - Te cares about data like that. It's important and vital to them for some strange reason. It's probably not #AllTeValuers but Te Valuers + ones get in some sort of position of authority around others.

IEE therapist: "Did you know Samuel that gay youth are eight times more likely to kill themselves? EIGHT TIMES!" (this was back when it was really eight times supposedly - and its like three times now or something idk. Again - it's irrelevant, but I'm sure a LIE will supervise me on the correct number)

Yeah but this is supposed to be about me here isn't it. I don't mean to be self-absorbed, but come on. What does that have to do with my psychological issues that u supposedly can help me fix. That doesn't actually do anything to make people feel sorry for them or help gays anyway - instead an anti-gay person is just like "Of course they off themselves more. If I were a gay- I'd kill myself too."

And likewise, just because 10,000 homosexuals jumped off a bridge with campy ACME spikes at the bottom - doesn't mean I would as well. There's another good joke in there somewhere, but it's lost to me at the moment.

[DogOfDanger]

Who gives a rat's behind about the success of various races?

Every person that argues for racial equity is arguing for equalizing success between various races. People argue for / about this all the time...

That is all true. That's why I asked "what do you think... ?" and not "there's no such thing as... !" I could swear most people have never seen a true random distribution in their lives. People assume purely random distributions and everything being equal are the same when randomness is generally all over the place, not evenly spaced out.

This sort of thing is why psychology is not taken seriously as a science... IQ distributions are not random, they're normal distributions based on giant samples... honestly, what you even talking about?

[Metamorph]

Every person that argues for racial equity is arguing for equalizing success between various races. People argue for / about this all the time...

I know that, but I'm not one of the people arguing for equity. The average white intelligence is probably higher than the average black intelligence due to breeding patterns in the tropics (that also apply to non-human animals) and due to environmental factors. So what? That doesn't mean individual black people who are geniuses should be held back on some preconceived notion of how black people should be. And there definitely are black geniuses and there definitely are white supremacist racists who would leverage the likelihood that black people on average probably are less intelligent to hold those people back. There are stupid white people, too, and beyond most white people being comparably stupid to most black people, the areas where there are dearths of white geniuses are similar: most of the Balkan states, for example, are probably dumber than sub-Saharan Africa, and areas in sub-Saharan Africa near the waterways are pretty comparable to most of Europe. Somalia might be backward now... Well, even England has gone through periods of backwardness. It's geography determining both skin color and intelligence, not skin color directly determining intelligence. Therefore, it's terrible to use skin color to discriminate, and it's also terrible to use geography, because people can and do move.

This sort of thing is why psychology is not taken seriously as a science... IQ distributions are not random, they're normal distributions based on giant samples... honestly, what you even talking about?

The distribution of individual intelligence seems random, though, because it is mostly correlated to environmental and hereditary factors that are essentially randomized. Additionally, there are far more retarded people than geniuses, and far more stupid people than smart people. The average intelligence appears to be much higher than the mode intelligence, so it seems perfectly accurate to say most people are dumb.

[DogOfDanger]

You don't offend me. Sure, I think you're an asshole with the 'You're not putting it in the proper hole!' 1950s homophobia - but that's a lot different than being personally affected by it or losing sleep over it. Use your brain and logic. If me or Coeruleum were afraid or offended of you, we wouldn't respond to your posts.

If somebody truly is an intimidating and logically bad ass str8 male, I will just avoid interacting with them altogether. Duh.

I think you're projecting with all this talk about intimidation, the person trying to intimidate is you with the long, irrelevant strings of insults aiming to censor / obfuscate facts about evolution. I never said any of that crap, infact I've made multiple arguments that actually justify your sexuality within the context of our conversation (since I'm aware I constantly have to do that). The trouble with you is you expect people to lie for you and play along with irrational / contradictory ideas... if they don't you read into their attitudes as being extremely hostile and begin hurling your emotional garbage at them while playing the victim, crying very loudly that you're being abused. I'm simply too old to care at this point - I'm not twisting the facts about evolution into what you wish they were, I expect you to deal with it... I don't care how offended you get, or how much emotional garbage you want to throw around... you can take that tactic, it only speaks to your inability to cope in a healthy way, and at the end of the day you're the one that's emotionally unstable / dysfunctional, Im not effected.
When we're talking facts I expect you to deal with it or yes, leave me alone if you can't.
Carry onward

[DogOfDanger]

The distribution of individual intelligence seems random, though, because it is mostly correlated to environmental and hereditary factors that are essentially randomized. Additionally, there are far more retarded people than geniuses, and far more stupid people than smart people. The average intelligence appears to be much higher than the mode intelligence, so it seems perfectly accurate to say most people are dumb.

An individuals IQ is not a distribution, it's a single point of data. It's a sample of 1, ... you can't even do a distribution on that.

[Metamorph]

An individuals IQ is not a distribution, it's a single point of data. It's a sample of 1, ... you can't even do a distribution on that.

...Distributions are comprised of individuals. I also don't equate intelligence and IQ, because I think one of the basic assumptions of IQ is horribly wrong: I don't think IQ is a bell curve, because I think there are orders of magnitude more stupid people than smart people, and the few really brilliant people are bringing the average up above the mode. Yes, most Syrian refugees to Sweden are stupid criminals. Most Swedes are stupid criminals too, and isn't that what The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was about? (I haven't read that book, due to being a hipster and having heard the author is a communist, but some non-tankie communists can write really well and aren't bad people, and some popular books are good despite being popular, so if I get more evidence it's worthwhile I'll read the series.) There might be more smart white people than smart black people; smart white people are vanishingly rare to begin with, and assuming no black people will be smart is a prejudice that's not justified since we know there are at least a handful of smart black people, even if there are certainly more well-documented smart white people than well-documented smart black people.

[DogOfDanger]

So what?

You are the person that brought up this topic.

That doesn't mean individual black people who are geniuses should be held back on some preconceived notion of how black people should be.

Did I ever imply otherwise...?

And there definitely are black geniuses and there definitely are white supremacist racists who would leverage the likelihood that black people on average probably are less intelligent to hold those people back.

Sure, but they can be dealt with on moral grounds, without lying about the data. When you lie you actually undermine your moral arguments, you don't strengthen them. Infact, part of why I detailed the difference between social success, evolution, and talked about humanities place in all this in my first post was to provide a solid grounding for dealing with these sorts of issues (a post to which you responded with something like.... durr, don't go on about it dude)

There are stupid white people, too

Oh yes, I'm well aware of this.

and beyond most white people being comparably stupid to most black people, the areas where there are dearths of white geniuses are similar: most of the Balkan states, for example, are probably dumber than sub-Saharan Africa, and areas in sub-Saharan Africa near the waterways are pretty comparable to most of Europe.

The statistics simply say otherwise. People in Africa have much lower IQs than African Americans due to nutritional deficiencies & other factors... there's also the Flynn effect that has something to do with this. .

Somalia might be backward now... Well, even England has gone through periods of backwardness. It's geography determining both skin color and intelligence, not skin color directly determining intelligence. Therefore, it's terrible to use skin color to discriminate, and it's also terrible to use geography, because people can and do move.

No, the racial IQ statistics that people typically reference, the ones showing an average black IQ of 86, were gathered within the United States. I think as of today that number has increased to 89, probably due to the Flynn effect which most effects people on the lower end of the distribution. The Flynn effect looks to have stopped now, though... some people are saying it might be reversing. We'll see.
The average African IQ is actually way below 86, there's not even a question about that - again it's due to nutritional deficiencies, cultural differences, etc.

[DogOfDanger]

...Distributions are comprised of individuals.

And IQ distributions are normal, not random.

[Metamorph]

And IQ distributions are normal, not random.

I'm saying IQ is bogus precisely because of the normal distribution. The people who designed the test presupposed that the mode and the average are identical, but I have very good reasons to believe that the mode is far below the average.

I also want you to go on about things, because the entirety of your argument is based around IQ but I think IQ is bogus because I think most people are stupid. I think civilization matters. Mesopotamia is a civilization. Humans are better off in civilization than in the wild. So intelligence does matter. But 99% of people, more or less, are screwed. This is regardless of race. Most white people are screwed just like most black people are screwed. The fact that IQ tests don't show that most white people are screwed is a problem with IQ tests, not the fact they accurately show most black people are screwed.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I never said any of that. Infact I've made multiple arguments that actually justify your sexuality within the context of our conversation. The trouble with you is you expect people to lie for you and play along with irrational / contradictory ideas... if they don't you read into their attitudes as being extremely hostile and begin hurling your emotional garbage at them while playing the victim, crying very loudly that you're being abused. I'm simply too old to care at this point - I'm not twisting the facts about evolution into what you wish they were, I expect you to deal with it... I don't care how offended you get, or how much emotional garbage you want to throw around... you can take that tactic, it only speaks to your inability to cope in a healthy way, and at the end of the day you're the one that's emotionally unstable / dysfunctional, Im not effected.
When we're talking facts I expect you to deal with it or yes, leave me alone if you can't.
Carry onward

lmao whoa. You sound so disturbed. Like you are unstable and then also hate yourself for being that way. Like I said before I trumped you in the logic and rationality part many times. Human beings are emotional though, I think you should just get over that and stop looking down on emotions when they are often the friends of facts anyway. You're just like Regina Hurt at Starr, thinking anybody that gives a convincing arguement or merely expressing themselves is 'Playing Victim.' Like I told that bitch , I'll stop playing a victim - when you stop being an offender. ((even tho it still doesn't offend me like you project that it does; and I'll happily boss fight both you and her at the same time with Coeruleum))

The facts about evolution is that me fucking a man and not a woman isn't harming evolution- it's helping it, because gay males naturally have sisters that are very fertile. That's a fact. I think you're probably LSI with Ne PoLR. Your own homophobia and typical Republicunt blame-the-victim asshole thinking is blinding you about the truth of the natural world and science, and yet you try to justify that you aren't being false- ur being factual, but you're not really being factual at all. You fucking a woman isn't any more natural or morally superior than me fucking a man is - you just think that because you've drunk the kool-aid of Republicunts. You say you don't care for both sides, but that's just something you say to attempt to manipulate other people. I can smell the Repubicunt Asshole str8 Male all over you.

[DogOfDanger]

Yawn. Keep projecting
We can see that there's all this besides-the-point nonsense that you get derailed by and read into, things that are either totally irrelevant to the conversation, or attitudes you assume I'm holding that I do not and never have suggested.

We've already discussed your ideas on evolution, feel free to address those comments above. Again, these 'tad incestuous' theories on evolution forgo the organisms own survival / reproduction on behalf of their sisters - you need pretty serious conditions of scarcity to setup incentives for that. My point all along has been this is driven by problems in the environment. Clearly the organism would much prefer to just go & propagate its own genes, mixing them directly with other organisms, if it had a choice - this is much more beneficial to it then being limited to promoting its sisters genes. That there is scarcity in the environment has been my point all along.

You could use this line of argument to claim that shooting oneself in the head is beneficial evolutionary if it allows others to have more food, or the dead body provides food for others, increasing the chances they'll live on... Or that, when necessary, eating ones family members is an evolutionary behavior. Dahmer-party scenarios... Black widow spiders do eat the males after being inseminated, but as I explained earlier, evolution is driven by relatively homeostatic conditions over billions of years, not fringe extinction-like scenarios. For a black widow this is evolutionary due to the frequent food shortages in their environment combined with the need for alot of energy to produce many offspring... it's an act that has a very direct and large evolutionary payoff. For a human beings there are no such frequent food shortages & reproductive opportunity that eating the mate would solve, so there is no basis for developing an evolved instinct to eat ones mate, if you were in a situation where this was necessary it would be contrary to all of your instincts. It might be beneficial to your survival, but it would not be instinct-driven. Also notice that all black widows do this...

What I have said the entire time - all I have really said - is that some behaviors are not driven by evolved instincts. I then went on a long winded explanation of how instincts can be blocked, or how organisms can be forced by circumstances to act in ways contrary to the instincts.

And btw... learn that correlation isn't causation, the sister increased fertility could also be a sign of increased female dominance and stifling matriarchy within the family, for all you know.

Showing that gays help their family members isn't enough to show evolutionary incentive, you'd actually need to demonstrate the sexual preference itself somehow directly contributed to the sisters successful survival / reproduction here, compared to something else like celibacy or straight male incels helping their sisters... AND that this is more beneficial than the organism continuing to seek its own successful reproduction while helping in the meantime (good luck with that one). You haven't demonstrated any of this, so...
Again, what you're presenting here is not a well analyzed idea, and it's uprooting the foundations of evolution out of a desperate need to change the facts...
Bias has no place in conversations about this topic, be biased elsewhere.

BTW - how do you provide the evolutionary incentives for gay children with no siblings in your scenario?

Maybe, while you're at it, you can also explain how transgenderism evolved... I'd really love to hear that explanation. Seeing as the condition is actually impossible without society defining it and modern medicine creating it. But it is a unique set of sexual conditions, and your claim seems to be that every such set of condition is evolutionary. Unless you're making exceptions for just your particular preferences and ignoring the others...
Carry onward

[DogOfDanger]

I don’t understand , how does men having sex with other men help there sisters be more fertile to such a degree that it incentivizes them to forgo their own survival/reproduction?

.

[DogOfDanger]

I'm saying IQ is bogus precisely because of the normal distribution. The people who designed the test presupposed that the mode and the average are identical, but I have very good reasons to believe that the mode is far below the average.

The only thing it really assumes is there's a continuum of intelligence that can be measured through the test format... Test questions are selected for reliability and validity, and selected to test intelligence at different levels... from that data you can form a normal curve... you norm the test to make sure the curve fits. There aren't any assumptions about the weight or granularity of intelligence itself, or the degree of differences between questions, 'how much' of the real continuum they're measuring... it is only presuming to be a relative measurement. All it is saying is 'you are smarter than xx% of people'. The score has been statistically validated. For example, if it predicts career success reliably (which it does) then this gives it validity.

[Eliza Thomason]

@Eliza Thomason @End @Shazaam @Subteigh @FreelancePoliceman What do you think of it?

I think it's probably a result of the artificial celibacy imposed on priests combined with the abuse of children. I don't think celibacy is inherently wrong or "unnatural," but I don't think it has anything to do with priesthood and people who want to be priests shouldn't be forced to be celibate since it's just not related and most people are not celibate, including people interested in theology. I don't see where God instituted celibacy at all (but then, God didn't seem to institute really anything the Catholic Church does, it still seems pagan to me even though maybe it was instituted by God and the Church is just being extremely secretive for apparently no reason.) I think often, the abusers are themselves children who were abused.

That is not it. The celibacy is real, not artificial, and agreed to, not imposed upon.

To be a priest is to serve God with one's entire life. Those who enter priesthood for personal power quickly find it a most miserable vocation. Some of these stay, though, living a life of great hypocrisy that is clearly anything but Catholic. But just because false priests exist doesn't mean real ones don't exist. We have heroes in these dark times, just as in previous dark times, as St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra was in his day. Modern day lights-in-the-darkness include Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and good Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

Yes, you are right, abusers are often children who were abused. Yes, so much of the time. God sees all hearts, and His heart breaks for the pain they endured as well as the pain they are now inflicting on others. He loves ALL, and He desires all to be saved. But He calls for repentance. In that call He is long-suffering. But if that call is never answered, the wages of sin is death.

There is much wrong everywhere in our world right now. Churches, governments, and every kind of leadership are all infiltrated by enemies of God and of the people. But ALL of our enemy leaders will soon face the aggressive judgment of God. This will be seen by the world. Then the people will rejoice when God gives back to us all that has been stolen from us. God says it is much more than we realize - and for many generations back! God says He will restore us and He will pour out His glory and blessings, healing, health and prosperity on us. We will live on earth how He intended us to live on it. We have a great future!
.
.

.
.
__________
[Sorry, you mentioned me in this at the top, but I have been and continue to be immersed in my work, so I did not see this. I know there is something else of yours I wanted to respond to, and I hope to get to it soon. But this discussion - wow. I skimmed a few pages but it is not my thing. I can't follow it. It is drawing mostly male interest].

[Eliza Thomason]

I don't want to bother timber anymore, but this is interesting article. I don't think it's celibacy. I do think pedophiles infiltrate. I also think there's a portion of pedophiles joining the clergy hoping God can save them.

https://www.scu.edu/illuminate/thoug...m-fiction.html

Statistics don't lie and I'm not interested in debating low grade pop psychology.

*LIKE* [BECAUSE MY *LIKE BUTTON* STILL DOESN'T WORK].

Good short article of facts. Of course, something really is wrong when Catholic priests consist of as many pedos as everyone else, instead of far less, considering the fount of Graces they have available to overcome everything. So, that is very terrible.

But God is cleaning house, and we will soon see!