Roundup

Friendly reminder: Everyone will spend eternity somewhere.

Do gun-free zones prevent multiple-victim public shootings? – No!  This common sense, people.  You just need to stop and think like a bad guy for about 10 seconds.  Just because people are criminals doesn’t mean they don’t process things through a risk / reward filter. 

“Contrary to public perception, Western Europe, most of whose countries have much tougher gun laws than the United States, has experienced many of the worst multiple-victim public shootings. Particularly telling, all the multiple-victim public shootings in Western Europe have occurred in places where civilians are not permitted to carry guns. The same is true in the United States: All the public shootings in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where civilians may not legally bring guns.”

The article has a list of MVPSs in Europe. They all occur in gun-free zones, where guns are prohibited by law.

When a government bans guns, the only people who have guns are criminals. And they know that there is no one to stop them when they open fire. That is why violent crime more than doubled in the 4 year period after the UK banned handguns.

Free audio Bibles – you can download the New Testament from the Faith Comes by Hearing site or Podcast it via iTunes. 

Thorough yet concise overview of Pope stuff — “several examples of how many popes acquired their office, the behavior of popes, and the unbiblical teachings of popes . . . the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope . . . questions to ask about the papacy”

How to find a church – Christians need to be in church.  There are remarkably few valid excuses not to do so.  If you can’t find a good church, then find the one that is the least bad and try to improve it.

Study says kids of Lesbians are “healthy” and have “fewer behavior problems” – Well, gee, if a study says it, then it must be true and we should make that the new societal ideal.  Or perhaps there are some other things you should know about the study . . .

Abortion activist complains, "There aren’t enough of us" – of course, the sad and morbidly ironic reply is, “Maybe if you hadn’t pushed for all those abortions . . .”

The sound of ice cream trucks went from being joy-inducing to really annoying 37 years ago.  This would make them more interesting. 

 

Digg This

31 thoughts on “Roundup

  1. The sound of an ice cream truck is music to my ears, because my company gets one in every week and gives us all free ice cream. You’re never too old for free ice cream.

    As for the “study”: some of the flaws are in the conclusion (“You don’t need men”), which doesn’t logically flow from the evidence. If married, heterosexual parents raise better kids than single moms, then, sorry, men are good to have around. And, I’m sorry to rant, but the comparison between lesbian and traditional parents is total b.s. for 98% of the female population – the 98% of the female population that is heterosexual. (Odd how this implies that we’re supposed to change our sexuality. What next for the whack jobs? Throwing women in jail if they dare to marry a man?)

    My options – and the options of the other 98% of the female population that is just as heterosexual as I am – for parenting are either single motherhood or married parenting. The studies are absolutely clear that the latter is far, far superiour.

    Don’t even get me started on the methological flaws in this. Or maybe you should – but in a week or so when my life calms down.

    • Isn’t it amazing Roxeanne– they presume certain facts as the basis of their research and then… WHAT A SHOCK… they reach conclusions that verify that their presumed facts are right.

      But they’re the experts, so we plebeians should quit our whining.

  2. I appreciate Glenn’s post on the Papacy, and his attempt is clearly sincere.

    However, as a basic starting point for dialog on the matter (in the true meaning of the word, not the modern liberal meaning of ‘shut up and agree with me’), I would assert that Hunt is… and I’m trying to be charitable with this… not a reliable source of information concerning Catholicism.

    I would further assert that Glenn does fully understand how the Papacy is viewed to work. The office and the person are not the same. All persons who have ever occupied the Papacy (regardless of what authority we do or don’t ascribe to the position) are sinners, some of them clearly moreso than others. Just as all the Apostles were sinners. And no doubt, some of them were very bad sinners (just as Judas was an apostle and a terrible sinner).

    A Pope only teaches officially on behalf of the Church when he is making clear that his statement is intended to be the clear teaching of the Church. A Pope may offer an erroneous, even heretical, view in a letter or a statement. As a man he is not protected from error. Only in his offering of official teaching is he protected from error.

    In this regard Glenn’s important points about how badly humans are capable of falling into sin don’t really seem to bolster his argument, and may even harm his argument. No doubt that some popes were guilty of fornication and perhaps even murder, and they surely will answer for such things before God. But none of them ever declared “fornication is licit” or “murder is a-okay.” Even in the worst periods of papal history, with terrible men serving as Pope, they did not change Church teaching to justify their actions. One could even suggest this only serves to illustrate how strongly the Spirit protects the Catholic Church from error, that even bad Popes who believe heterodox things and commit horrid public sins did not alter the teaching of the Church.

    I’m not saying that there aren’t good arguments against Catholicism, or good criticisms of the Church. There are, and there are. What I am saying is that much of the evidence doesn’t really serve to illustrate the points that Glenn is putting forward.

  3. Neil, in response to your post, “Study says kids of Lesbians are “healthy” and have “fewer behavior problems”:

    I recently posted an entry at both my blogs refuting the homosexual activists assertion that homosexuality is natural and normal. In it, I referenced a study done a few years ago wherein scientists injected a female fruit fly with the gene of a male fruit fly. The fruit fly then made sexual advances on another female fly.

    From this, the researchers concluded homosexuality is genetic.

    The problem is, it doesn’t prove anything of the kind. It proves exactly opposite. That fruit flies do not possess a naturally occurring homosexual gene. The fruit fly has to be genetically altered to change to a homosexual fly. Without human interference, it would never be anything but a heterosexual fruit fly.

    See, the problem with such research, is they go about it the wrong way. They have to form a hypothesis, and then set out to prove it’s not true. That’s the proper way to test a hypothesis. Not the other way around. The study you reference was conducted with the same flawed process.

    • I always wonder, if homosexuality is genetic, how does it fit with evolution? Not that I don’t think that someone has not already explained it, since evolution is, as you said, a make-it-up-as-you-go-to-prove-what-you-already-know science, much like the science that proves homosexuality is normal good.

      • Two ways:

        1. If the gene helps more than it hurts, it will be passed along.
        2. Evolution is a process, not a result; bad genes can still be in the process of getting evolved out of our genome.

        Another big point that really irks me about this line of reasoning: before the modern era, homosexuals used to get married and have babies, naturally. Society expected it. They just did it. So evolutionary effects wouldn’t kick in with all that social pressure overriding natural desire.

        There’s good arguments against the gay agenda; making the bad ones isn’t a great idea, IMHO.

      • And there we go, the explanation complete with the customary circular logic.

        Let me see. Evolution is the result of millions and millions of years of the fitest passing along its genes through reproduction, yet here we are with a gene that is counter reproductive yet politically correct, and wha-lah, there it supposedly is having snuck its way through those millions of years of non-reproduction. But hey, don’t ask questions about this lest you be accused of making a bad argument for something else.

        “Another big point that really irks me about this line of reasoning: before the modern era, homosexuals used to get married and have babies, naturally. Society expected it. They just did it. So evolutionary effects wouldn’t kick in with all that social pressure overriding natural desire.

        I’m not one to think, much less say, that those who disagree with me are idiotic, on the contrary I many times see them as just the opposite. That said, I’m going to just assume that I missed something somewhere along the way on this one.

      • This is a really common misconception about evolution, and I don’t blame anyone for having it. What you need to think about is families and populations, not individuals. In nature, and with humans, organisms usually reside very closely with other organisms that have almost identical genes. Even if you don’t reproduce, you often do things that help your family members reproduce, and even help raising their children. It is often an advantage for a “family” to have members who do not have young of their own, since that person is free from obligations to their own offspring, and can raise the ability of the entire family to survive. More of the family surviving means more of the genes being passed on, and those genes could have within them, a trait that causes homosexuality in a certain percentage of expressions of the gene. This is called “kin selection’.

        Another theory is that homosexuality is simply a part of a gene that has other, completely unrelated benefits. This happens with Sickle Cell Anemia. It happens to be a genetic disorder that is attached to a gene that prevents one from contracting malaria. It’s a terrible disease, but its relation to preventing malaria is benefitial.

        These are just a couple of theories of why homosexuality exists. I’m sure you think both are rubbish, and I’m interested in hearing why.

      • Those are what we refer to as “just so” stories. See Kipling, Rudyard. And please don’t comment again on evolution. We’ve been through this.

      • What do you mean by “just so stories”? They are simply ideas that try to explain what we see. One or both could be wrong. Science is about trying to explain something, and asking your peers to tell you where you’re mistaken, not telling people to shut up.

      • Oh, that was science? Indeed.

        Re shutting up, thx for the laugh. You make this too easy. Go see Expelled! three times.

        Sent from my iPhone

      • Another theory has it that mating species didn’t differentiate that much between male and female and copulated with whoever was available in the group. The groups with more males had the higher survival rates.

      • There is one problem with that last comment. I made it up off the cuff, becasue it’s easy to do and anybody can do it. That’s why it ain’t science.

      • I’m pretty Mark is glossing over some details of that study, because the evidence he says is presented does not support homosexuality being genetic.

        As far as it being genetic, there are some very strong hypotheses that show why it is genetic. On it being genetic at all, the distribution of homosexuality all but proves this, unless you can think of a reason why is is virtually the same percentage throughout the world, and throughout history.

        I won’t expand on the evolution, part. I need to meet my “evolution conspiracy buddies” for another fossil burying party.

      • 1. No proof of it being genetic.
        2. Even if it was genetic, doesn’t mean it is moral.
        3. Since many genetic traits aren’t distributed evenly throughout the world then homosexuality wouldn’t necessarily be, either, even if it was genetic. A more logical explanation would be that people all over the world are sinners.

      • 1. True, it’s not proof

        2. True, there are hollywood examples that being a jerk is genetic.

        3. You right about not all genetic traits are homogenous, but a trait being homogenous in a population of people is good evidence that is is unrelated to cultural, religious, and environmental effects. If you want to chalk it up to sinning, would you not think it would have different percentages in areas where cultures consider it a sin, vs those that do not?

      • Re. sinning — the sin is against God, not the cultures, so the fact that most cultures are guilty of most sins would be expected.

      • P.S. I’m not offering that as some sort of air-tight proof of God’s existence, just a response to your point about it being common historically and geographically (I have no idea about the %’s for those categories — just taking your assertion at face value).

  4. Interesting how Dan just attacked me and called me stupid, rather than actually addressing the merits.

    Some suggestions for Dan:
    1. Address issues on their merits. I gave two explanations for what you’ve seen, and both hold water. Take them down, rather than going at me – unless, of course, “idiotic” doesn’t apply to the woman in this discussion.

    2. Learn the difference between circular reasoning and internal consistency.

    3. Don’t ever call me “idiotic”. I consistently test just shy of three standard deviations above the norm, and have little regard for the intellects – and less for the character – of people who use that particular slur against me. You may as well just call a major-league athlete a weakling.

    4. Understand evolution before you attack it. It’s always interesting how religious people, who should be quite familiar with having their adversaries attack straw men version of their beliefs, are more than happy to attack straw men versions of evolution. Danvolution might not hold water, but the actual theory makes sense.

    • I don’t quite understand what Dan is disagreeing with you about.

      It seemed that you were simply putting forth the argument how some homosexual (or homosexual-ish) behaviors might be genetic.

      You use that to show what the good and proper arguments and evidence WOULD look like were they found, and then from there show that the article in question did NOT provide either those arguments or that type of evidence, but instead reached their conclusion without the proper arguments or evidence.

      Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, R.d.L, or maybe I’m misunderstanding Dan… but I don’t really understand what Dan is actually disagreeing with or why he is doing so?

      It seems to me that he SHOULD be agreeing with you, since you’ve laid out what standard evolutionary theory would indicate would be true, and then show that the pro-homosexualists aren’t finding that at all.

      Of course all this ignores the absurdity of suggesting that, in humans, a particular behavior is entirely genetic. The very fact that children raised by lesbian couples are (supposedly) turning out in some fashion different from those raised by non-lesbian couples only highlights the massive role that psychology, nature, and environment play in human development, further undermining the “It’s all just genetics” argument.

      So, to re-iterate, I’m baffled as to why Dan is disagreeing with you.

      • Of all the people I have encountered in this venue, you LCB, are one of the few for whom I hold a deep respect. You so graciously pointed out to me the problem with my argument. That does not happen often in real life, and especially in these forums by someone you normally agree with. I am a student here learning to engage a world deteriorating in decency. Thank you for pointing this out and please feel free to do it again as necessary.

        By the way, I came back to my comment latter and realized that it seemed unnecessarily combative, something that I have been trying to avoid no matter who is that I’m engaged with. Blogger would have allowed me to delete and rephrase but alas, it was not an option.

        Got to go, bye.

    • Let me see:

      I wondered in reply to Mark how the homosexuality could be explained by evolution. I made no arguments for anything except possibly that evolutionary science is a sham. And it is.

      I assumed in RDL’s response that she was giving two legitimate ways in which it was explained. Both ways involved circular logic, as I saw it, because they supported the premise with the premise, the premise being that the homosexual gene exists.

      As for calling you stupid I did not. Nor, as I said, did I even think it. I actually gave considerable thought to this

      ” I’m not one to think, much less say, that those who disagree with me are idiotic, on the contrary I many times see them as just the opposite.”

      statement after reading and rereading it. My hope was that you would explain it. Upon reading it again, it still makes no sense to me. And as I said, I assumed the problem is with me, as in I’m missing something, not you.

      I am sure you are correct in saying that you are a smart person. If I had to bet my life on it I would bet that you are smarter than I, and probably incredibly so in the arena of evolution. Still, I contend that evolution is not science at all. Now I will read your “oh for fun” post.

  5. Oh, for fun:

    yet here we are with a gene that is counter reproductive yet politically correct,

    You’re using the circular logic here, Dan. First, as I pointed out (and you ignored), a lot of gay people have had biological children. In fact, for hundreds of thousands of years, they all did, because damn near everyone got married and had kids.

    (On a side note, this is how any number of weird genes still get passed along, like the one for breast and ovarian cancer. Women have kids, and pass the gene along, before they die from the diseases. Evolution isn’t about a “good gene/bad gene” thing; it’s just a mathematical and statistical question of what gets passed along.)

    Second, and more importantly, a gene that acts one way in a man might act a different, and opposite, way in a woman. (Funny how the anti-science religious are so quick to treat men and women as being exactly the same when it comes to genetics and evolution….) There’s some evidence that being gay is genetic, but that being a lesbian is not. So, using the term “gay gene” to refer exclusively to male homosexuality, the question becomes thus: does the “gay gene” in men act to reduce reproduction (assuming, arguendo, that the thousands of years of social pressure to marry a woman and have babies with her does not exist) more than it would act to increase fertility in women? If so, it will gradually be weeded out of the population.

    Oh, a third point, because it’s just fun: genetics is more complicated than you learned in seventh grade. All genes aren’t like eye colour, wherein one acts or the other acts in a binary fashion. Many genes interact in very complex ways, and they can be switched on or off depending on things like environment and the interaction with other genes. (In fact, I just read a study wherein researchers found that proteins will coil around genes, and the amount of coiling depends on the amount of interaction that the baby had with its mother during formative months.)

    So, any number of seemingly “counter-reproductive” genes could be passed along – for many generations – because genetics is not a black-and-white issue. I would think that this would be obvious to anyone who has read about genetic testing – and how some people with certain genes have no issues, whereas others struggle.

    Oh, and, of course, we’re still on the evolution as a statistical process, not a result, thing….

    • Slightly off topic, I read an article recently discussing studies done on identical twins using advanced genetic testing techniques, and the article indicated that more and more evidence was being found that particular genes were (or were not) activated (or were more/less active) based on a large variety of environmental factors. Which adds a fascinating new set of variables to the complex field of genetics, creating the possibility of speaking about evolution in terms of not just a process of change, but different processes of change taking place in different ways in different locations due to different environmental factors.

    • You’re using the circular logic here, Dan. First, as I pointed out, a lot of gay people have had biological children. In fact, for hundreds of thousands of years, they all did, because damn near everyone got married and had kids

      First, could you please help me understand how I am using circular logic with the quoted statement? If I am, I need to know so that I can avoid it in the future.

      I didn’t ignore this, I just wondered how homosexuls had children. Here is your statement:

      Another big point that really irks me about this line of reasoning: before the modern era, homosexuals used to get married and have babies, naturally. Society expected it. They just did it. So evolutionary effects wouldn’t kick in with all that social pressure overriding natural desire.

      Now as I read this I think I initially interpreted it correctly but what thew me was the inserted word naturally. Plus I was not thinking in terms of eveloution in a late-in-evolution sense, as with homo-sapians. I was thinking much ealier in the process, like when, and however, sex was introduced into reproduction somewhere between the first life form and mating.

      Oh by the way, I don’t know if you read on down or not but your explanation of the difference between male and female homosexuals affirms one of the problems that I had considered with the “scientific” explanation that I made up about how the homosexual gene survived:

      Another theory has it that mating species didn’t differentiate that much between male and female and copulated with whomever and whatever was available in the group. The groups with more males had the higher survival rates.

  6. I assumed in RDL’s response that she was giving two legitimate ways in which it was explained. Both ways involved circular logic, as I saw it, because they supported the premise with the premise, the premise being that the homosexual gene exists.

    Dan,

    THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERNAL CONSISTENCY AND CIRCULAR LOGIC.

    Caps, because you missed it the first time.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s