Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #332076 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-09 17:04 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-11-12 16:04 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 83 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 17:04 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-10 02:09 +0000
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 19:11 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-10 02:17 +0000
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 19:25 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-10 02:49 +0000
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-09 20:00 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-10 08:16 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-10 09:27 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-10 06:01 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-10 09:23 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 09:13 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-10 10:14 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 11:17 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-10 11:34 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 12:08 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-10 10:03 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Marti van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> - 2015-11-11 16:14 +0100
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-11 16:32 +0100
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-11 10:49 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-11 17:47 +0100
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-11 12:23 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 12:12 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-11 16:35 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-12 11:21 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-12 11:02 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Marti van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> - 2015-11-12 09:49 +0100
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-12 10:04 +0100
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-12 11:34 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-12 11:59 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-12 12:33 -0600
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-12 13:55 -0600
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-15 11:19 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-15 09:34 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-11 10:47 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-12 10:53 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-12 10:33 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-12 22:57 +0000
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-12 18:42 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-12 17:58 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-13 01:20 +0000
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-12 18:44 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 18:14 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-13 10:19 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-12 12:32 -0600
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-12 12:07 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-13 00:29 +0000
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-12 17:59 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-13 01:23 +0000
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-12 18:46 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-13 02:21 +0000
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-12 19:25 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-13 02:49 +0000
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-12 20:04 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-13 03:23 +0000
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-13 01:49 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-13 09:24 +0000
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-13 02:39 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-13 11:04 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-13 11:23 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-13 12:43 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-13 11:06 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 10:25 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 10:08 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-13 13:28 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-13 11:34 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 11:11 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-13 14:45 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-13 14:38 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 13:50 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-13 15:08 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-13 20:13 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-13 18:18 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-13 20:20 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-13 23:55 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-14 09:06 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 09:03 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 08:39 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-13 10:05 -0700
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 09:32 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-13 12:42 -0500
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 08:35 -0800
Re: OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... awoolmeyer@gmail.com - 2015-11-12 16:04 -0800
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 17:04 -0700 |
| Subject | OT: While we fight over if Muslims or Christians are more evil... |
| Message-ID | <D266829F.63587%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
<http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179>
-----
Nonreligious children are more generous
Religious doctrines typically urge the faithful to treat others
with compassion and to put the greater good before selfish
interests. But when it comes to generosity, nonreligious kids seem
to be more giving, according to a new study of 1170 children from
around the world. Children from religious homes--particularly
Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's
misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. The study, the
first large-scale analysis of its kind, suggests that religion and
moral behavior don't necessarily go hand-in-hand for children.
...
The children from nonreligious households left 4.1 stickers on
average, a statistically significant difference from Christian
children (3.3) and Muslim ones (3.2). Also, the more religious the
household, based on a survey of parents, the less altruistic the
child. The child¹s age, socioeconomic status, and country of
origin also played a role, but not enough to override the effect
of religious differences, according to the study. In older
children, the split was most stark, with religious youth
increasingly unlikely to share.
-----
Believe whatever religion you want - but understand that your religion is no
better than the ones you work to attack as "bad". And even with this
finding, lacking faith does not guarantee moral behavior. There are good and
bad of every faith, and in those with no faith.
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 02:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <srhuf903.a03@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #332076 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> > ----- > Nonreligious children are more generous > > Religious doctrines typically urge the faithful to treat others > with compassion and to put the greater good before selfish > interests. But when it comes to generosity, nonreligious kids seem > to be more giving, according to a new study of 1170 children from > around the world. Children from religious homes--particularly > Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's > misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. The study, the > first large-scale analysis of its kind, suggests that religion and > moral behavior don't necessarily go hand-in-hand for children. > ... > The children from nonreligious households left 4.1 stickers on > average, a statistically significant difference from Christian > children (3.3) and Muslim ones (3.2). Also, the more religious the > household, based on a survey of parents, the less altruistic the > child. The child¹s age, socioeconomic status, and country of > origin also played a role, but not enough to override the effect > of religious differences, according to the study. In older > children, the split was most stark, with religious youth > increasingly unlikely to share. > ----- > Another horseshit, non-scientific "study." > Believe whatever religion you want - but understand that your religion is no > better than the ones you work to attack as "bad". And even with this > finding, lacking faith does not guarantee moral behavior. There are good and > bad of every faith, and in those with no faith. > Percentages matter. Muslims are hysterical, insane, violent subhumans in far greater percentages than any other group.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 19:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D266A04A.635FD%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #332156 |
On 11/9/15, 7:09 PM, in article srhuf903.a03@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> >> ----- >> Nonreligious children are more generous >> >> Religious doctrines typically urge the faithful to treat others >> with compassion and to put the greater good before selfish >> interests. But when it comes to generosity, nonreligious kids seem >> to be more giving, according to a new study of 1170 children from >> around the world. Children from religious homes--particularly >> Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's >> misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. The study, the >> first large-scale analysis of its kind, suggests that religion and >> moral behavior don't necessarily go hand-in-hand for children. >> ... >> The children from nonreligious households left 4.1 stickers on >> average, a statistically significant difference from Christian >> children (3.3) and Muslim ones (3.2). Also, the more religious the >> household, based on a survey of parents, the less altruistic the >> child. The child¹s age, socioeconomic status, and country of >> origin also played a role, but not enough to override the effect >> of religious differences, according to the study. In older >> children, the split was most stark, with religious youth >> increasingly unlikely to share. >> ----- >> > > Another horseshit, non-scientific "study." So you disagree. OK. But you have no evidence. OK. >> Believe whatever religion you want - but understand that your religion is no >> better than the ones you work to attack as "bad". And even with this >> finding, lacking faith does not guarantee moral behavior. There are good and >> bad of every faith, and in those with no faith. > > Percentages matter. Muslims are hysterical, insane, violent subhumans > in far greater percentages than any other group. And you just proved you are EXACTLY what you describe Muslims as. OK. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 02:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fshnejf0.03a3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #332158 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/9/15, 7:09 PM, in article srhuf903.a03@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> >>> ----- >>> Nonreligious children are more generous >>> >>> Religious doctrines typically urge the faithful to treat others >>> with compassion and to put the greater good before selfish >>> interests. But when it comes to generosity, nonreligious kids seem >>> to be more giving, according to a new study of 1170 children from >>> around the world. Children from religious homes--particularly >>> Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's >>> misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. The study, the >>> first large-scale analysis of its kind, suggests that religion and >>> moral behavior don't necessarily go hand-in-hand for children. >>> ... >>> The children from nonreligious households left 4.1 stickers on >>> average, a statistically significant difference from Christian >>> children (3.3) and Muslim ones (3.2). Also, the more religious the >>> household, based on a survey of parents, the less altruistic the >>> child. The child¹s age, socioeconomic status, and country of >>> origin also played a role, but not enough to override the effect >>> of religious differences, according to the study. In older >>> children, the split was most stark, with religious youth >>> increasingly unlikely to share. >>> ----- >>> >> >> Another horseshit, non-scientific "study." > > So you disagree. OK. But you have no evidence. OK. > I read the article. That's all it takes to debunk the study. >>> Believe whatever religion you want - but understand that your religion is no >>> better than the ones you work to attack as "bad". And even with this >>> finding, lacking faith does not guarantee moral behavior. There are good and >>> bad of every faith, and in those with no faith. >> >> Percentages matter. Muslims are hysterical, insane, violent subhumans >> in far greater percentages than any other group. > > And you just proved you are EXACTLY what you describe Muslims as. OK. > That comment makes no sense whatsoever. Try again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 19:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D266A390.63602%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #332159 |
On 11/9/15, 7:17 PM, in article fshnejf0.03a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 11/9/15, 7:09 PM, in article srhuf903.a03@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> >>>> ----- >>>> Nonreligious children are more generous >>>> >>>> Religious doctrines typically urge the faithful to treat others >>>> with compassion and to put the greater good before selfish >>>> interests. But when it comes to generosity, nonreligious kids seem >>>> to be more giving, according to a new study of 1170 children from >>>> around the world. Children from religious homes--particularly >>>> Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's >>>> misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. The study, the >>>> first large-scale analysis of its kind, suggests that religion and >>>> moral behavior don't necessarily go hand-in-hand for children. >>>> ... >>>> The children from nonreligious households left 4.1 stickers on >>>> average, a statistically significant difference from Christian >>>> children (3.3) and Muslim ones (3.2). Also, the more religious the >>>> household, based on a survey of parents, the less altruistic the >>>> child. The child¹s age, socioeconomic status, and country of >>>> origin also played a role, but not enough to override the effect >>>> of religious differences, according to the study. In older >>>> children, the split was most stark, with religious youth >>>> increasingly unlikely to share. >>>> ----- >>>> >>> >>> Another horseshit, non-scientific "study." >> >> So you disagree. OK. But you have no evidence. OK. > > I read the article. That's all it takes to debunk the study. Ah, yes, you have dubunked it... you disagree. OK. >>>> Believe whatever religion you want - but understand that your religion is >>>> no better than the ones you work to attack as "bad". And even with this >>>> finding, lacking faith does not guarantee moral behavior. There are good >>>> and bad of every faith, and in those with no faith. >>>> >>> Percentages matter. Muslims are hysterical, insane, violent subhumans in >>> far greater percentages than any other group. >>> >> And you just proved you are EXACTLY what you describe Muslims as. OK. > > That comment makes no sense whatsoever. Try again. You have this huge desire to prove others are worse than you and that your religion is so great. It is really just a big pissing contest with you to see if you can find another religion that is even more evil than yours. So what? Both religions do good things and bad. Not a contest. Your little pissing match as to how your religion is not quite as bad, in your mind, is just sickness. As I have shown you there are TRULY good religious people, Christians and Jews and Muslims, all working together. Those that do so are working toward peace ... not the hatred and war you are pushing. They are better than you. They are not hateful bigots. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 02:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhsue03.akfie@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #332162 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/9/15, 7:17 PM, in article fshnejf0.03a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 11/9/15, 7:09 PM, in article srhuf903.a03@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> >>>>> ----- >>>>> Nonreligious children are more generous >>>>> >>>>> Religious doctrines typically urge the faithful to treat others >>>>> with compassion and to put the greater good before selfish >>>>> interests. But when it comes to generosity, nonreligious kids seem >>>>> to be more giving, according to a new study of 1170 children from >>>>> around the world. Children from religious homes--particularly >>>>> Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's >>>>> misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. The study, the >>>>> first large-scale analysis of its kind, suggests that religion and >>>>> moral behavior don't necessarily go hand-in-hand for children. >>>>> ... >>>>> The children from nonreligious households left 4.1 stickers on >>>>> average, a statistically significant difference from Christian >>>>> children (3.3) and Muslim ones (3.2). Also, the more religious the >>>>> household, based on a survey of parents, the less altruistic the >>>>> child. The child¹s age, socioeconomic status, and country of >>>>> origin also played a role, but not enough to override the effect >>>>> of religious differences, according to the study. In older >>>>> children, the split was most stark, with religious youth >>>>> increasingly unlikely to share. >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>> >>>> Another horseshit, non-scientific "study." >>> >>> So you disagree. OK. But you have no evidence. OK. >> >> I read the article. That's all it takes to debunk the study. > > Ah, yes, you have dubunked it... you disagree. OK. > The study is not scientific. That's obvious from the article. If you want to believe some bonehead interpretation of a non-scientific study, have at it. >>>>> Believe whatever religion you want - but understand that your religion is >>>>> no better than the ones you work to attack as "bad". And even with this >>>>> finding, lacking faith does not guarantee moral behavior. There are good >>>>> and bad of every faith, and in those with no faith. >>>>> >>>> Percentages matter. Muslims are hysterical, insane, violent subhumans in >>>> far greater percentages than any other group. >>>> >>> And you just proved you are EXACTLY what you describe Muslims as. OK. >> >> That comment makes no sense whatsoever. Try again. > > You have this huge desire [remaining psychobabble snipped]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 20:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D266ABD4.6360E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #332165 |
On 11/9/15, 7:49 PM, in article fhsue03.akfie@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 11/9/15, 7:17 PM, in article fshnejf0.03a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/9/15, 7:09 PM, in article srhuf903.a03@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> Nonreligious children are more generous >>>>>> >>>>>> Religious doctrines typically urge the faithful to treat others >>>>>> with compassion and to put the greater good before selfish >>>>>> interests. But when it comes to generosity, nonreligious kids seem >>>>>> to be more giving, according to a new study of 1170 children from >>>>>> around the world. Children from religious homes--particularly >>>>>> Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's >>>>>> misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. The study, the >>>>>> first large-scale analysis of its kind, suggests that religion and >>>>>> moral behavior don't necessarily go hand-in-hand for children. >>>>>> ... >>>>>> The children from nonreligious households left 4.1 stickers on >>>>>> average, a statistically significant difference from Christian >>>>>> children (3.3) and Muslim ones (3.2). Also, the more religious the >>>>>> household, based on a survey of parents, the less altruistic the >>>>>> child. The child¹s age, socioeconomic status, and country of >>>>>> origin also played a role, but not enough to override the effect >>>>>> of religious differences, according to the study. In older >>>>>> children, the split was most stark, with religious youth >>>>>> increasingly unlikely to share. >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Another horseshit, non-scientific "study." >>>> >>>> So you disagree. OK. But you have no evidence. OK. >>> >>> I read the article. That's all it takes to debunk the study. >> >> Ah, yes, you have dubunked it... you disagree. OK. > > The study is not scientific. That's obvious from the article. If you > want to believe some bonehead interpretation of a non-scientific study, > have at it. You disagree. I get that. OK. But it is a LOT more reliable than the nonsense you spew about religion. >>>>>> Believe whatever religion you want - but understand that your religion is >>>>>> no better than the ones you work to attack as "bad". And even with this >>>>>> finding, lacking faith does not guarantee moral behavior. There are good >>>>>> and bad of every faith, and in those with no faith. >>>>>> >>>>> Percentages matter. Muslims are hysterical, insane, violent subhumans in >>>>> far greater percentages than any other group. >>>>> >>>> And you just proved you are EXACTLY what you describe Muslims as. OK. >>> >>> That comment makes no sense whatsoever. Try again. >>> >> You have this huge desire to prove others are worse than you and that your >> religion is so great. It is really just a big pissing contest with you to see >> if you can find another religion that is even more evil than yours. So what? >> Both religions do good things and bad. Not a contest. Your little pissing >> match as to how your religion is not quite as bad, in your mind, is just >> sickness. >> >> As I have shown you there are TRULY good religious people, Christians and >> Jews and Muslims, all working together. Those that do so are working toward >> peace ... not the hatred and war you are pushing. They are better than you. >> They are not hateful bigots. > > [remaining psychobabble snipped] And off you go, waving your white flag. Good day. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 08:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1sqj9$9vi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332156 |
On 2015-11-09 9:09 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> >> ----- >> Nonreligious children are more generous >> >> Religious doctrines typically urge the faithful to treat others >> with compassion and to put the greater good before selfish >> interests. But when it comes to generosity, nonreligious kids seem >> to be more giving, according to a new study of 1170 children from >> around the world. Children from religious homes--particularly >> Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's >> misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. The study, the >> first large-scale analysis of its kind, suggests that religion and >> moral behavior don't necessarily go hand-in-hand for children. >> ... >> The children from nonreligious households left 4.1 stickers on >> average, a statistically significant difference from Christian >> children (3.3) and Muslim ones (3.2). Also, the more religious the >> household, based on a survey of parents, the less altruistic the >> child. The child¹s age, socioeconomic status, and country of >> origin also played a role, but not enough to override the effect >> of religious differences, according to the study. In older >> children, the split was most stark, with religious youth >> increasingly unlikely to share. >> ----- >> > > Another horseshit, non-scientific "study." +1 >> Believe whatever religion you want - but understand that your religion is no >> better than the ones you work to attack as "bad". And even with this >> finding, lacking faith does not guarantee moral behavior. There are good and >> bad of every faith, and in those with no faith. >> > > Percentages matter. Muslims are hysterical, insane, violent subhumans > in far greater percentages than any other group. Very accurate assessment. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 09:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D267691E.636C9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #332229 |
On 11/10/15, 6:16 AM, in article n1sqj9$9vi$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > On 2015-11-09 9:09 PM, owl wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> >>> ----- >>> Nonreligious children are more generous >>> >>> Religious doctrines typically urge the faithful to treat others >>> with compassion and to put the greater good before selfish >>> interests. But when it comes to generosity, nonreligious kids seem >>> to be more giving, according to a new study of 1170 children from >>> around the world. Children from religious homes--particularly >>> Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's >>> misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. The study, the >>> first large-scale analysis of its kind, suggests that religion and >>> moral behavior don't necessarily go hand-in-hand for children. >>> ... >>> The children from nonreligious households left 4.1 stickers on >>> average, a statistically significant difference from Christian >>> children (3.3) and Muslim ones (3.2). Also, the more religious the >>> household, based on a survey of parents, the less altruistic the >>> child. The child¹s age, socioeconomic status, and country of >>> origin also played a role, but not enough to override the effect >>> of religious differences, according to the study. In older >>> children, the split was most stark, with religious youth >>> increasingly unlikely to share. >>> ----- >>> >> >> Another horseshit, non-scientific "study." > > +1 > >>> Believe whatever religion you want - but understand that your religion is no >>> better than the ones you work to attack as "bad". And even with this >>> finding, lacking faith does not guarantee moral behavior. There are good and >>> bad of every faith, and in those with no faith. >>> >> >> Percentages matter. Muslims are hysterical, insane, violent subhumans >> in far greater percentages than any other group. > > Very accurate assessment. Comes down to you disagree with the study, too. Actual evidence, though, does not back what you claim. This is, of course, just one study... so why not show others looking at similar things which back your view? Comes down to your view is not easy to back when you look at actual research. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 06:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dbd8e2a5-dfed-4fc3-bb41-a221433cacdd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #332156 |
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 9:09:48 PM UTC-5, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> > > ----- > > Children from religious homes--particularly > > Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's > > misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. Even Snit's study singles out Muslims. > > Another horseshit, non-scientific "study." > > > Believe whatever religion you want - but understand that your religion is no > > better than the ones you work to attack as "bad". And even with this > > finding, lacking faith does not guarantee moral behavior. There are good and > > bad of every faith, and in those with no faith. > > > > Percentages matter. Muslims are hysterical, insane, violent subhumans > in far greater percentages than any other group. Well if one takes the study at face value, it does single out Muslims as being particularly likely to punish those they deem wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 09:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D267680A.636C7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #332252 |
On 11/10/15, 7:01 AM, in article
dbd8e2a5-dfed-4fc3-bb41-a221433cacdd@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 9:09:48 PM UTC-5, owl wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179>
>>> -----
>>> Children from religious homes--particularly
>>> Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's
>>> misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators.
>
> Even Snit's study singles out Muslims.
And Christians... and those who are not religious! The only thing noted to
be statistically significant is:
-----
The children from nonreligious households left 4.1 stickers on
average, a statistically significant difference from Christian
children (3.3) and Muslim ones (3.2). Also, the more religious the
household, based on a survey of parents, the less altruistic the
child. The child¹s age, socioeconomic status, and country of
origin also played a role, but not enough to override the effect
of religious differences, according to the study. In older
children, the split was most stark, with religious youth
increasingly unlikely to share.
------
The actual study (or at least what we have of it):
<http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01167-7>
-----
Highlights
€ Family religious identification decreases children¹s
altruistic behaviors
€ Religiousness predicts parent-reported child sensitivity to
injustices and empathy
€ Children from religious households are harsher in their
punitive tendencies
-----
But, sure, there may be some slight difference between Muslims and
Christians... but they are, as I have been saying, far more alike than they
are different.
>> Another horseshit, non-scientific "study."
>>
>>> Believe whatever religion you want - but understand that your religion is no
>>> better than the ones you work to attack as "bad". And even with this
>>> finding, lacking faith does not guarantee moral behavior. There are good and
>>> bad of every faith, and in those with no faith.
>>>
>>
>> Percentages matter. Muslims are hysterical, insane, violent subhumans
>> in far greater percentages than any other group.
>
> Well if one takes the study at face value, it does single out Muslims
> as being particularly likely to punish those they deem wrong.
But it does not say this is a statistically significant difference. If you
are very, very kind to me I will help you understand the meaning of the
phrase "statistically significant." :)
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 09:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2270a908-37aa-4f88-b39d-ace61fa0a031@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #332296 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 9:23:27 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 11/10/15, 7:01 AM, in article > dbd8e2a5-dfed-4fc3-bb41-a221433cacdd@googlegroups.com, "cc" > <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 9:09:48 PM UTC-5, owl wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> > >>> ----- > >>> Children from religious homes--particularly > >>> Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's > >>> misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. > > > > Even Snit's study singles out Muslims. > > And Christians... and those who are not religious! Said Snit as he proved he doesn't know the meaning of the phrase "singles out". >The only thing noted to > be statistically significant is: It's only "significant" if you ignore how the statistics were obtained. Go read the 'study', you'll see it has issues. > The actual study (or at least what we have of it): > <http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01167-7> > ----- > Highlights > € Family religious identification decreases childrenąs > altruistic behaviors > € Religiousness predicts parent-reported child sensitivity to > injustices and empathy > € Children from religious households are harsher in their > punitive tendencies > ----- Did you read the study? Actually... for you, did you understand it? Can you prove you understood it? You could, in part, if you answer this: Exactly how did they ascertain that those living in the non-religious dwellings are *completely* devoid of religious influence with respect to the headline's conclusion? > But, sure, there may be some slight difference between Muslims and > Christians... but they are, as I have been saying, far more alike than they > are different. Horsesh*t. > > >> Another horseshit, non-scientific "study." > >> > >>> Believe whatever religion you want - but understand that your religion is no > >>> better than the ones you work to attack as "bad". And even with this > >>> finding, lacking faith does not guarantee moral behavior. There are good and > >>> bad of every faith, and in those with no faith. > >>> > >> > >> Percentages matter. Muslims are hysterical, insane, violent subhumans > >> in far greater percentages than any other group. > > > > Well if one takes the study at face value, it does single out Muslims > > as being particularly likely to punish those they deem wrong. > > But it does not say this is a statistically significant difference. If you > are very, very kind to me I will help you understand the meaning of the > phrase "statistically significant." :) Do it right after you explain why anyone with a brain should give this 'study' any credence. Stats are meaningless if the way in which there were obtained undermines the conclusion drawn from them. Cap off those med bottles and see if you can make sense of that reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 10:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e1d239d0-cae1-4486-a7b9-6c88f357a44a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #332318 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 12:13:09 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 9:23:27 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > > On 11/10/15, 7:01 AM, in article > > dbd8e2a5-dfed-4fc3-bb41-a221433cacdd@googlegroups.com, "cc" > > <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 9:09:48 PM UTC-5, owl wrote: > > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > >>> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> > > >>> ----- > > >>> Children from religious homes--particularly > > >>> Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's > > >>> misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. > > > > > > Even Snit's study singles out Muslims. > > > > And Christians... and those who are not religious! > > Said Snit as he proved he doesn't know the meaning of the phrase > "singles out". > > >The only thing noted to > > be statistically significant is: > > It's only "significant" if you ignore how the statistics were > obtained. Go read the 'study', you'll see it has issues. > > > The actual study (or at least what we have of it): > > <http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01167-7> > > ----- > > Highlights > > € Family religious identification decreases childrenąs > > altruistic behaviors > > € Religiousness predicts parent-reported child sensitivity to > > injustices and empathy > > € Children from religious households are harsher in their > > punitive tendencies > > ----- > > Did you read the study? Well obviously he didn't. He said "at least what we have of it" and linked to the abstract when the full text is right there. > Actually... for you, did you understand it? > Can you prove you understood it? You could, in part, if you answer > this: Exactly how did they ascertain that those living in the > non-religious dwellings are *completely* devoid of religious > influence with respect to the headline's conclusion? In the comments section, people are already pointing out several flaws. Everything from sample size, to graphs not matching data, to giving out stickers somehow being the measure of altruistic, to the title referring to "across the World" while somehow ignoring major religions and parts of the world. In short, this is right up Snit's alley as far as statistics are concerned. > > > But, sure, there may be some slight difference between Muslims and > > Christians... but they are, as I have been saying, far more alike than they > > are different. > > Horsesh*t. > > > > > >> Another horseshit, non-scientific "study." > > >> > > >>> Believe whatever religion you want - but understand that your religion is no > > >>> better than the ones you work to attack as "bad". And even with this > > >>> finding, lacking faith does not guarantee moral behavior. There are good and > > >>> bad of every faith, and in those with no faith. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Percentages matter. Muslims are hysterical, insane, violent subhumans > > >> in far greater percentages than any other group. > > > > > > Well if one takes the study at face value, it does single out Muslims > > > as being particularly likely to punish those they deem wrong. > > > > But it does not say this is a statistically significant difference. If you > > are very, very kind to me I will help you understand the meaning of the > > phrase "statistically significant." :) > > Do it right after you explain why anyone with a brain should give > this 'study' any credence. Stats are meaningless if the way in which > there were obtained undermines the conclusion drawn from them. Cap > off those med bottles and see if you can make sense of that reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 11:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2dafef9b-3d20-4f61-9567-5cf557fead9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #332335 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 11:14:54 AM UTC-7, cc wrote: > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 12:13:09 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 9:23:27 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > > > On 11/10/15, 7:01 AM, in article > > > dbd8e2a5-dfed-4fc3-bb41-a221433cacdd@googlegroups.com, "cc" > > > <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 9:09:48 PM UTC-5, owl wrote: > > > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > > >>> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> > > > >>> ----- > > > >>> Children from religious homes--particularly > > > >>> Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's > > > >>> misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. > > > > > > > > Even Snit's study singles out Muslims. > > > > > > And Christians... and those who are not religious! > > > > Said Snit as he proved he doesn't know the meaning of the phrase > > "singles out". > > > > >The only thing noted to > > > be statistically significant is: > > > > It's only "significant" if you ignore how the statistics were > > obtained. Go read the 'study', you'll see it has issues. > > > > > The actual study (or at least what we have of it): > > > <http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01167-7> > > > ----- > > > Highlights > > > € Family religious identification decreases childrenąs > > > altruistic behaviors > > > € Religiousness predicts parent-reported child sensitivity to > > > injustices and empathy > > > € Children from religious households are harsher in their > > > punitive tendencies > > > ----- > > > > Did you read the study? > > Well obviously he didn't. He said "at least what we have of it" and > linked to the abstract when the full text is right there. > > > Actually... for you, did you understand it? > > Can you prove you understood it? You could, in part, if you answer > > this: Exactly how did they ascertain that those living in the > > non-religious dwellings are *completely* devoid of religious > > influence with respect to the headline's conclusion? > > In the comments section, people are already pointing out several > flaws. Everything from sample size, to graphs not matching data, > to giving out stickers somehow being the measure of altruistic, to > the title referring to "across the World" while somehow ignoring > major religions and parts of the world. In short, this is right up > Snit's alley as far as statistics are concerned. I just took a quick look at the study, not the comments, but it wouldn't surprise me to see that people are rightfully questioning it. If Snit even understands what I wrote he'd have to agree that the methodology for ascertaining the degree of religious influence is based on a survey. That is problematic to say the least because it's based on not only what people may recall (or may not, because they are not aware of outside religious influences on their child) but if those surveyed are even telling the truth or are inaccurate in some other way(s). Obviously, any survey would be limited (to an unknown degree) in its scope with respect to the degree of accuracy required to have faith in the conclusion that was reached. IOW, this is based on something that was merely claimed to have been observed and recalled accurately. Put another way, by this same 'logic', Snit should be claiming that his quotes list indicates what people are saying about him is true based on the fact that they said it, yet, we know how he whines about his list. We all know the guy is a giant hypocrite so he'll obviously pretend this version of 'they said so' is "evidence", whereas, those 'saying so' on his quotes list isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 11:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5b90a41c-a3dc-49db-a1b6-8d55a6a19441@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #332351 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 2:17:48 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 11:14:54 AM UTC-7, cc wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 12:13:09 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 9:23:27 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > > > > On 11/10/15, 7:01 AM, in article > > > > dbd8e2a5-dfed-4fc3-bb41-a221433cacdd@googlegroups.com, "cc" > > > > <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 9:09:48 PM UTC-5, owl wrote: > > > > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > > > >>> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> > > > > >>> ----- > > > > >>> Children from religious homes--particularly > > > > >>> Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's > > > > >>> misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. > > > > > > > > > > Even Snit's study singles out Muslims. > > > > > > > > And Christians... and those who are not religious! > > > > > > Said Snit as he proved he doesn't know the meaning of the phrase > > > "singles out". > > > > > > >The only thing noted to > > > > be statistically significant is: > > > > > > It's only "significant" if you ignore how the statistics were > > > obtained. Go read the 'study', you'll see it has issues. > > > > > > > The actual study (or at least what we have of it): > > > > <http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01167-7> > > > > ----- > > > > Highlights > > > > € Family religious identification decreases childrenąs > > > > altruistic behaviors > > > > € Religiousness predicts parent-reported child sensitivity to > > > > injustices and empathy > > > > € Children from religious households are harsher in their > > > > punitive tendencies > > > > ----- > > > > > > Did you read the study? > > > > Well obviously he didn't. He said "at least what we have of it" and > > linked to the abstract when the full text is right there. > > > > > Actually... for you, did you understand it? > > > Can you prove you understood it? You could, in part, if you answer > > > this: Exactly how did they ascertain that those living in the > > > non-religious dwellings are *completely* devoid of religious > > > influence with respect to the headline's conclusion? > > > > In the comments section, people are already pointing out several > > flaws. Everything from sample size, to graphs not matching data, > > to giving out stickers somehow being the measure of altruistic, to > > the title referring to "across the World" while somehow ignoring > > major religions and parts of the world. In short, this is right up > > Snit's alley as far as statistics are concerned. > > I just took a quick look at the study, not the comments, but it > wouldn't surprise me to see that people are rightfully questioning it. > If Snit even understands what I wrote he'd have to agree that the > methodology for ascertaining the degree of religious influence is based > on a survey. That is problematic to say the least because it's based > on not only what people may recall (or may not, because they are not > aware of outside religious influences on their child) but if those > surveyed are even telling the truth or are inaccurate in some other > way(s). Obviously, any survey would be limited (to an unknown degree) > in its scope with respect to the degree of accuracy required to have > faith in the conclusion that was reached. IOW, this is based on > something that was merely claimed to have been observed and recalled > accurately. Put another way, by this same 'logic', Snit should be > claiming that his quotes list indicates what people are saying about > him is true based on the fact that they said it, yet, we know how > he whines about his list. We all know the guy is a giant hypocrite > so he'll obviously pretend this version of 'they said so' is > "evidence", whereas, those 'saying so' on his quotes list isn't. Besides the problems you point out, there's no accounting for cultural differences. Assuming that the dictator game is a good measure of altruism (which is a stretch already), the researchers do nothing to separate out and single out religion as being the sole factor in how the kids behaved. A group of goodie goodie atheist Canadian kids, educated by Slimer to be generous, vegan, athletes, could skew the results. So are they more generous because they're non-religious? Or because they're Canadian? Or because they live in a school district that sends them to the school where Slimer teaches? They do nothing to separate religion out, and assume it must be because of that. But if you want to say it's not flawed at all, then you have to admit that it finds that Muslims are more prone to punishing those they believe are wrong. So either way it was probably not the best "study" for Snit to post. By the way, that was an obvious hypothetical involving Canadians. We all know they're dishonest moose fuckers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 12:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ea5cc6f0-5a69-4d79-b32e-02cae4215535@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #332368 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 12:35:04 PM UTC-7, cc wrote: > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 2:17:48 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 11:14:54 AM UTC-7, cc wrote: > > > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 12:13:09 PM UTC-5, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 9:23:27 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > > > > > On 11/10/15, 7:01 AM, in article > > > > > dbd8e2a5-dfed-4fc3-bb41-a221433cacdd@googlegroups.com, "cc" > > > > > <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 9:09:48 PM UTC-5, owl wrote: > > > > > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > > > > >>> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> > > > > > >>> ----- > > > > > >>> Children from religious homes--particularly > > > > > >>> Muslims--also showed a greater inclination to judge someone's > > > > > >>> misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even Snit's study singles out Muslims. > > > > > > > > > > And Christians... and those who are not religious! > > > > > > > > Said Snit as he proved he doesn't know the meaning of the phrase > > > > "singles out". > > > > > > > > >The only thing noted to > > > > > be statistically significant is: > > > > > > > > It's only "significant" if you ignore how the statistics were > > > > obtained. Go read the 'study', you'll see it has issues. > > > > > > > > > The actual study (or at least what we have of it): > > > > > <http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01167-7> > > > > > ----- > > > > > Highlights > > > > > € Family religious identification decreases childrenąs > > > > > altruistic behaviors > > > > > € Religiousness predicts parent-reported child sensitivity to > > > > > injustices and empathy > > > > > € Children from religious households are harsher in their > > > > > punitive tendencies > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > Did you read the study? > > > > > > Well obviously he didn't. He said "at least what we have of it" and > > > linked to the abstract when the full text is right there. > > > > > > > Actually... for you, did you understand it? > > > > Can you prove you understood it? You could, in part, if you answer > > > > this: Exactly how did they ascertain that those living in the > > > > non-religious dwellings are *completely* devoid of religious > > > > influence with respect to the headline's conclusion? > > > > > > In the comments section, people are already pointing out several > > > flaws. Everything from sample size, to graphs not matching data, > > > to giving out stickers somehow being the measure of altruistic, to > > > the title referring to "across the World" while somehow ignoring > > > major religions and parts of the world. In short, this is right up > > > Snit's alley as far as statistics are concerned. > > > > I just took a quick look at the study, not the comments, but it > > wouldn't surprise me to see that people are rightfully questioning it. > > If Snit even understands what I wrote he'd have to agree that the > > methodology for ascertaining the degree of religious influence is based > > on a survey. That is problematic to say the least because it's based > > on not only what people may recall (or may not, because they are not > > aware of outside religious influences on their child) but if those > > surveyed are even telling the truth or are inaccurate in some other > > way(s). Obviously, any survey would be limited (to an unknown degree) > > in its scope with respect to the degree of accuracy required to have > > faith in the conclusion that was reached. IOW, this is based on > > something that was merely claimed to have been observed and recalled > > accurately. Put another way, by this same 'logic', Snit should be > > claiming that his quotes list indicates what people are saying about > > him is true based on the fact that they said it, yet, we know how > > he whines about his list. We all know the guy is a giant hypocrite > > so he'll obviously pretend this version of 'they said so' is > > "evidence", whereas, those 'saying so' on his quotes list isn't. > > Besides the problems you point out, there's no accounting for cultural > differences. I'd argue along with, not besides... as cultural differences definitely play a part in what I pointed out and it's really what I had in mind. For awhile, our youngest went to a daycare that was religious (we only chose it because it came highly recommended, was clean and close). He started bringing more of the 'religious culture' into our house, *way* more than we ever interjected, despite us both having grown up Christians (but we haven't practiced grade school). Realistically, unless it produced bad behavior, we have no idea what they told him that might have stuck. > Assuming that the dictator game is a good measure of > altruism (which is a stretch already), the researchers do nothing to > separate out and single out religion as being the sole factor in > how the kids behaved. A group of goodie goodie atheist Canadian kids, educated by Slimer to be generous, vegan, athletes, could skew the > results. So are they more generous because they're non-religious? > Or because they're Canadian? Or because they live in a school district > that sends them to the school where Slimer teaches? They do nothing > to separate religion out, and assume it must be because of that. They were looking for something they found, what a shock ;) They also don't account for the upbringing of the parents of these kids and whatever influences they had that got passed on. Think about it, to do so would be an *enormous* undertaking. This encompasses things those parents may *believe* they are no longer practicing, but they are, in fact, doing so subconsciously. > But if you want to say it's not flawed at all, then you have to admit > that it finds that Muslims are more prone to punishing those they > believe are wrong. So either way it was probably not the best > "study" for Snit to post. It's seriously flawed from a science perspective, to the point where I don't see how it can be claimed it's a scientific study. > By the way, that was an obvious hypothetical involving Canadians. We > all know they're dishonest moose fuckers. Exactly. LOL!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 10:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b5ab62b9-af90-4eb5-993e-d76a2dbe0527@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #332296 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 11:23:27 AM UTC-5, Snit wrote: > On 11/10/15, 7:01 AM, in article > dbd8e2a5-dfed-4fc3-bb41-a221433cacdd@googlegroups.com, "cc" > <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Even Snit's study singles out Muslims. > > And Christians... and those who are not religious! "particularly Muslims" is a phrase singling out Muslims. It is not used for Christians or atheists. > > The actual study (or at least what we have of it): > <http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01167-7> There is a full text tab. http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)01167-7 Maybe you should have read the study before trying to claim what it says? > > But it does not say this is a statistically significant difference. If you > are very, very kind to me I will help you understand the meaning of the > phrase "statistically significant." :) "Post hoc Bonferroni-corrected paired comparisons showed that children in Muslim households judged interpersonal harm as more mean than children from Christian (p < 0.005) and non-religious (p < 0.001) households" "this was qualified by significantly harsher ratings of punishment by children from Muslim households than children from non-religious households (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between children from Christian households and non-religious households." So there you have it. The researchers have the data to show Muslims are more likely to punish those they deem wrong than Christians or the non-religious. I mean it was already quoted in the article you linked too, but I guess that wasn't good enough for you. Whoops, guess you'll have to pretend you have me killfiled again! I look forward to you trying to argue that the stats the researchers somehow point out as being significant differences (with values) are not statistically significant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marti van Lin <ml2mst@dontevenbother.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 16:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1vm19$fbs$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #332156 |
Op 10-11-15 om 03:09 schreef owl: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> >> ----- [crap snipped] > Another horseshit, non-scientific "study." What else did you expect? Its a "Snit" post after all :-p [more ridiculous crap snipped] > Percentages matter. Muslims are hysterical, insane, violent subhumans > in far greater percentages than any other group. I'm openly *GAY* (of Roman-Catholic descent) never seen a *Conservative Christian* dropping a Homo from a large building so far :-p -- |_|0|_| Marti T. van Lin (alias ML2MST) |_|_|0| Computer enthusiast and Amateur Musician |0|0|0| http://osg33x.blogspot.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 16:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n1vmut$gij$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332553 |
Marti van Lin wrote: > Op 10-11-15 om 03:09 schreef owl: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> >>> ----- > > [crap snipped] > >> Another horseshit, non-scientific "study." > > What else did you expect? Its a "Snit" post after all :-p > > [more ridiculous crap snipped] > >> Percentages matter. Muslims are hysterical, insane, violent subhumans >> in far greater percentages than any other group. > > I'm openly *GAY* (of Roman-Catholic descent) never seen a *Conservative > Christian* dropping a Homo from a large building so far :-p > Well, bruning those at the stake is much more like them
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 10:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1vnt5$hi4$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #332558 |
On 2015-11-11 10:32 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Marti van Lin wrote: > >> Op 10-11-15 om 03:09 schreef owl: >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> <http://news.sciencemag.org/node/117179> >>>> ----- >> >> [crap snipped] >> >>> Another horseshit, non-scientific "study." >> >> What else did you expect? Its a "Snit" post after all :-p >> >> [more ridiculous crap snipped] >> >>> Percentages matter. Muslims are hysterical, insane, violent subhumans >>> in far greater percentages than any other group. >> >> I'm openly *GAY* (of Roman-Catholic descent) never seen a *Conservative >> Christian* dropping a Homo from a large building so far :-p >> > > Well, bruning those at the stake is much more like them That was supposed witches, not homosexuals. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web