**Shodan *and BugMeNot2 just go for a Google vomit and expect all to just be impressed with their “research” capabilities…
***BugMeNot2 **did it on the other thread by citing the several times discredited Inhofe’s list with virtually no climate scientists and claiming that that was a valid rebuttal to the fact that in reality the number of scientists who are skeptics of AGW are the ones that are shrinking.
Yes, there’s a dearth of rolly eyed smilies and pithy “Liberals WOULD say that” remarks.
Well, I did phrase it as a conditional.
It’s not too difficult for me to imagine how promiscuity could lead to pregnancy, which then led to marriage in the '50s.
It’s hard to find a hard cite that states how many teen marriages in the 50’s were due to an unplanned pregnancy. Perhaps I should be looking at how many “premature - wink wink” babies were born to teen married mothers to glean this figure.
I doubt it. I think Starv really, really likes being the lone voice howling in the liberal wilderness. Kind of like guys who wear bow-ties in order to express the *tiniest *bit of indivual eccentricity: if everybody else started doing it, they would stop,
While I actually am favorably impressed by the (rare) actual serious studies found among all those citations supporting religion, I would note that the only actual reference to civility or politeness was an opinion expressed by William Raspberry that was offered as a conjecture that was never supported.
“Social attitudes” deal with civic responsibilities, (voting, tax-paying, etc.), and attitudes toward marriage, home upkeep, child rearing, etc. Arbitrarily claiming that the phrase refers to courtesy and politeness is an error and is not supported by any of the citations.
As I explained to you, I literally found the first reference that I came across.
You, on the other hand, have provided zero links to any articles (even WSJ ones!) that show that the ranks of skeptics are shrinking, or that the science is settling i.e. more and more scientists accepting man-made climate change.
So…one link from a reputable news organization (WSJ) vs NO link at all. Hmm.
When I was growing up, when we heard a girl was getting married, a common remark was “married, i didn’t even know she was pregnant”. It was expected that she was expecting.
Public religious practice. As in, religious practice conducted in a public place, which the study you cited quite clearly differentiates from private religious practice.
I did a PsycINFO search on religiosity and: exp Prosocial Behavior/ or exp Interpersonal Interaction/ or exp “Assistance (Social Behavior)”/ or exp Problem Solving/ or exp Altruism/ or exp Morality/ or exp Charitable Behavior/ or kindness.mp., and limited the results to peer reviewed papers.
The search generated 455 hits. The fourth item was the first one relevant to the issue of how religiosity might be related to “kindness” as indicated above.
Johnson, Matthew C; Morris, Robert G. The moderating effects of religiosity on the relationship between stressful life events and delinquent behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol 36(6) , 486-493.
Abstract: Previous research has shown that many forms of strain are positively related to delinquency. Evidence also suggests that religiosity buffers the effects of strain on offending, but this issue requires further research. Using data from a national sample of adolescents, this study examined whether or not religiosity conditioned the relationship between strain and delinquency. This study also looked at the ability of social support, self esteem, and depression to moderate the influence of strain on delinquent behavior. The findings here lend support to general strain theory in that strain had a direct positive effect on delinquency, yet there was little evidence that the relationship was moderated by religiosity or other conditioning variables. The roles of moderating variables on strain across genders were also considered. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2009 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)
Bolding mine. This one item doesn’t summarize the entirety of the results. I did a cursory review of the first 50 or so, and they fairly unambiguously did not support the assertion that religiosity is particularly associated with kindness or prosocial behavior. I didn’t hit upon any review article or meta-analysis in that span. Then I realized I was wasting a lot of time and gave up. Take this for what it’s worth.
And this would be an example of “…describ[ing] the flaws in these studies that renders them unreliable.”
I haven’t looked at the underlying issue at all; I just jumped on the dismissal based on Heritage Foundation origin. Your critique, above, certainly strikes me as valid.
That is the definition of a Google vomit, it includes not investigating if the cite will be embarrassing to the “researcher” before posting it.
There was a history link, and others with links to the research in others posts directed at you, I have to conclude you are expecting that your lie here will fly.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11328875&postcount=127
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11328986&postcount=144
Sure I gave links, if you think that lying that I gave none helps your position I have to say that here is evidence that you are not as smart as you think.
Not being aware of the dishonesty of Inhofe shows how discredited the opinion from (An opinion piece is not a news report you numbnuts) the WSJ was.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/28/inhofe-diatribe/
Again, the Inhofe problem is not that Blick advocates a fundamentalist theology that is hostile to science. Blick is certainly entitled to his non-scientific opinion and screwy theology. Just don’t claim that he is a prominent scientist whose opinion should be taken seriously about global warming.
Not only is the Oklahoma senator being deceptive; he is spreading misinformation in the public square. Again and again, the increasingly unhinged deniers of global warming point to Inhofe’s report to validate their theocratic worldview or selfish economic interests at the expense of the global good. It only takes a village of global warming deniers to slow down the needed initiatives to address climate change.
Next time you hear or read about a growing number of scientists who disagree that human beings are causing global warming, remember Chris Allen and Edward Blick.
Remember than what gets Inhofe into trouble is not what he doesn’t know, but what he thinks he knows that just isn’t so.
No it doesn’t.
Mormon chapels are not public places.
See how the definition is exactly the opposite of what you claimed?
Regards,
Shodan
Gosh, a WSJ opinion piece. I wonder why I didn’t find that more convincing. Oh, right, because anyone can write an opinion piece. Sarah Palin had one published about energy policy the other day, and it was similarly full of shit.
Not neccesarily! It could as easily be evidence that you are not as dumb as he thinks you are. Mustn’t leap to unwarranted conclusions.
On a side note, I’m reasonably sure that I’m the one who coined that phrase.
There were far more “premature births” in the Fifties, too …
Same way you sample the others - that is, pick a representative group and ask them if they ever attend church, even though they have no affiliation.
The study finds that church attendance correlates with volunteerism, and it doesn’t matter if you are Catholic and attend church, Protestant and attend church, or don’t formally belong to any denomination and attend church.
At least as well as a study on the relationship between stressful life events and delinquent behavior.
If you define delinquency as “un-civil”, then one would expect that its opposite can be defined as “civil” behavior. Well and good - attending church correlates with lower rates of criminal offense, even in nations outside the US (cite).
Is there another definition you want? Marriage success, perhaps? OK, people who attend church divorce less and report higher levels of marital satisfaction. Civic involvement? They donate blood more often.
I am not going to bother with cites for the rest, since apparently no one reads them.
Regards,
Shodan
That BTW is not mine but the edit window caught me.
It comes from here (a link in the science blog that was used in the reply post that BugMeNot2 claims had no link):
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/inhofes_list_of_prominent_scie.php
That has a link to this:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStoryPrinter=14084
That has the text that was supposed to be in the quote.
I think Inhofe and **BugMeNot2 **need a subscription to Ethics Daily.
Do you have some copy of the study, or a citation to the publication? If not, all you can do is speculate about what might or might not be in the actual study based on the blurb you found online, and to nobody’s surprise you’ll find that I suspect your speculation to be worth dick.
Nope. Substance use is often a correlate of antisocial behavior, but it is not an indicator of it. You’re out of your depth here.