Wikipedia, porn, religion and politics!, Wikipedia, porn, religion and politics! Options

[lilburne]

And I think that this is the study I was remembering.

For those who don't want to read through all of that, there's quite a few news articles reporting on the study.

You should be aware of this which I posted to before:

http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm

It applies to all such 'studies' and those from an economic background are particularly prone to falling foul of it: which is why it is called 'econometrics'.


The executive summary is that these models don't work for economics where they were designed and there is no evidence to assume that they work for social issues for which they weren't designed. They are either so simplistic that anyone can see the flaw in the model immediately, or so complex that any slight change in the data will give you the opposite result from that reported. For example if you choice your start or end point to be a month earlier or later, or if you picked a slightly different population group

IOW they are the type of junk science that is so beloved by the media.

[Proabivouac]

The executive summary is that these models don't work for economics where they were designed and there is no evidence to assume that they work for social issues for which they weren't designed.

Presumably they have some non-random correlation with the underlying truth most of the time, but that's a long way from knowing what's actually going on and why. People like Silver Seren grasp at them because they appear to confirm what they want to believe; this is probably also the motive of many authors. If there were a real science of society, people wouldn't be stuck screaming at and pressuring one another to come around to their essentially religious points of view.

This was well worth reading; thanks for linking, Lilburne:

http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Sat 17th March 2012, 9:08am

[Peter Damian]

This was well worth reading; thanks for linking, Lilburne:

http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm

Seconded. Thanks. Larry Sanger made a slightly different point here a week ago. He is a parent (as I am). He doesn't want his children exposed to this kind of stuff at an early age. Neither do many parents. End of story. Wikipedians can try and reform society as much as they like, the fact remains that parents like us don't want to be 'reformed', thank you. The problem is that (unlike parents, who have to balance earning money and paying for their family with actually looking after them) Wikipedians have much more time on their hands to push this kind of nonsense. That is where the whole thing is fundamentally unbalanced.

[Web Fred]

There are just as many studies that porn can help marriages, reduce incidences of rape as there are that say it increases misogyny and 'desensitisation'.

When it comes to porn all studies show whatever the grant payer wants them to show.

[Ottava]

All studies prove that porn makes you de-sensitized to sex so you need more and more, or more risky kinds.

[citation needed]

A simple internet search on de-sensitization with porn will show you that. It is the same with any chemical addiction, and porn is connected to chemical addictions you know (hint, sex releases endorphins).

[Text]

A simple internet search on de-sensitization with porn will show you that. It is the same with any chemical addiction, and porn is connected to chemical addictions you know (hint, sex releases endorphins).

Dr. Kort, visiting scientist at MIT, said that solving difficult puzzles is even better than sex, as it releases more endorphines. If that's the case, people should really try to solve the difficult puzzle of Wikipedia and the rest of Web 2.0. An endorphine overload will surely happen once the problems connected to those things are solved.

[timbo]

Um...I thought there were studies that showed that pornography actually decreased incidences of crimes like rape?

He seems to be saying the exact opposite. (With nothing to support his statements, obviously)

Santorum is running a faith-based campaign.

Don't let any of that secular scientific method stuff get in the way of a good bible story...


t

[Proabivouac]

Santorum is running a faith-based campaign.

As opposed to who?

Times like these I wonder if I didn't mistakenly log into Daily Kos or Democratic Underground.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Sun 18th March 2012, 3:23am

[iii]

Santorum is running a faith-based campaign.

As opposed to who?

Mitt Romney. Or, at least, his campaign is not overtly Mormon.

[Web Fred]

Santorum is running a faith-based campaign.

As opposed to who?

Mitt Romney. Or, at least, his campaign is not overtly Mormon.

Either way, but it at least is starting to show that that supposed separation between church and state is rapidly getting smaller.

Give it a few more decades and there'll be little difference between the US and Iran the only difference will be the direction government officials pray to.

Iran -> Mecca
USA -> Wall St.

[Ottava]

Either way, but it at least is starting to show that that supposed separation between church and state is rapidly getting smaller.

Give it a few more decades and there'll be little difference between the US and Iran the only difference will be the direction government officials pray to.

Iran -> Mecca
USA -> Wall St.

What you fail to realize is that there is no "separation of church and state" but a prohibition on Congress limiting religion. It would violate the First Amendment to keep politicians from being open about their religion. In the Federalist Papers, one of the statements about voting for elected officials is that we should vote for their moral and ethical systems as opposed to what we want them to pass in terms of specific laws, so knowing their views on religion is necessary.

[Selina]

(Mod note: Try to stay on topic if possible, this can't really be split effectively to the politics section due to how the issues of politics and religion around this are intertwined, but try to keep it as on topic if possible rather than turning into a total US politics discussion! And remember when the debate gets heated, attack the arguments not the contributors, a couple of one-liner back and forths removed )

[mbz1]

Here's a new article http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/santoru...-163813068.html

As president, Santorum says he would instruct his attorney general to prosecute those who distribute content his administration deems "obscene."

[Web Fred]

Here's a new article http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/santoru...-163813068.html

As president, Santorum says he would instruct his attorney general to prosecute those who distribute content his administration deems "obscene."

Right, that's Iraq and Afghanistan sorted, not to mention the extradition treaty with the UK and how much money is spent by the MPAA on lobbeying.

[Wikitaka]

Nooooo, Santorum will also put an end to WR. No WP, no WR...

[Silver seren]

A highly religious person persecuting things he considers obscene.

Well, Canada looks nice this time of year.

[Ottava]

Here's a new article http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/santoru...-163813068.html

As president, Santorum says he would instruct his attorney general to prosecute those who distribute content his administration deems "obscene."

AKA follow the law. You do know that obscenity laws are still there, and mostly used now to target things like bestiality, child porn, etc. that rightfully should be blocked, right?

[Web Fred]

Here's a new article http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/santoru...-163813068.html

As president, Santorum says he would instruct his attorney general to prosecute those who distribute content his administration deems "obscene."

AKA follow the law. You do know that obscenity laws are still there, and mostly used now to target things like bestiality, child porn, etc. that rightfully should be blocked, right?

Define "obscene".

I bet you can't do it any better than a religiously motivated politician can.

My definitions of obscene rarely include sexual matters.

[Vigilant]

All studies prove that porn makes you de-sensitized to sex so you need more and more, or more risky kinds.

[citation needed]

A simple internet search on de-sensitization with porn will show you that. It is the same with any chemical addiction, and porn is connected to chemical addictions you know (hint, sex releases endorphins).

In the spirit of more useful communication,

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/20/santorums_...ence/singleton/

I'd like your response to the dearth of scientific papers that might back your assertion and links to those that you think do back your proposition.

[jayvdb]

All studies prove that porn makes you de-sensitized to sex so you need more and more, or more risky kinds.

[citation needed]

A simple internet search on de-sensitization with porn will show you that. It is the same with any chemical addiction, and porn is connected to chemical addictions you know (hint, sex releases endorphins).

sex is bad ... mkay?

Add to the list:
Exercise
Soothing music
Spicy food
Sunlight
Laughter
Tears
Sweets
Life (hint, endorphins arn't the boogie man)