Free Republic

as y’all probably already know, this is a steaming pile of unscientific BS. 1. 5 points out of 100 = 5%; never trust a study that doesn’t publish its error rate - which is probably +/- 10% in this case 2. did they control for heredity? Could it be possible that dumb children have dumb parents? 3. I was spanked as a child only when I did something dangerous or disrespectful (the same criteria we use on our children), and my IQ is way above average. Most likely because my parents were highly intelligent, and I was raised to think for myself. 4. dumb people will probably believe this pseudoscience - yet will continue to spank their children “at random” because it seems to work. 5. otherwise intelligent people with terminal groupthink infections (you know, “liberals”) will cite this study as proof of the barbarity of spanking, and will thus continue to let their children run amuck and never mature - guaranteeing more undisciplined liberals in the future... ...which is probably the real agenda of this “study” ;-)

As you pointed out, every single poster on this thread has already figured out that this "study" is nothing but liberal propaganda.

Murray Strauss is not really a "researcher." He is a campaigner to change the laws so that parents will be arrested for spanking their children, as is already happening in Europe. (Of course they're not having many kids over there and those nations are quickly dying out.)

He's like PETA except focused on families instead of animals. Do you think that PETA is going to release a study that says that eating meat is good for you? That will happen before Murray Strauss will release an honest and unbiased study on the effects of spanking children.

Every couple years he comes out with some similar B.S. study, all of which are similarly biased and based on pre-determined conclusions.

Wait a second. All the people calling her a "nutjob" and "stark raving mad" are forgetting that this is the woman who was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and then confirmed by a Senate vote of 96 to 3. And this was after she forthrightly testified during confirmation hearings that she was adamantly pro-abortion. So if she's a "nutjob" and "stark raving mad," then she is a Republican nutjob and no more mad than our elected GOP senators.

The Republican's, who we all worked hard to put into office starting in 1996, are responsible for this, nobody else. They had the chance to transform the country and they blew it thru their own irresponsible spending, not standing up to the media and drinking the DC Kool-Aid.

Thank you for injecting some sense into this discussion. What frightens me is the fact that Republicans still don't seem to get it. The new chairman of the RNC seems to want to be an Obama clone. Those pseudo conservatives who led us into this disaster seem to have learned nothing.

I'd like to hear a giant "Mea Culpa" from the entire GOP establishment. If they refuse to admit where they went wrong, then how can we ever trust them to do better in the future?

And if I don't trust them, is it likely that a Dem-leaning voter is going to do so? The GOP has absolutely no shot at ever coming back until they first realize where they went wrong and then correct their mistakes.

Scientists have observed inflation since 1929. It's real and it's measurable. Scientists have observed the effects of dark matter and have measured it through observing sheer. The evidence for dark energy is overwhelming. There, I've proved to you that the very first sentence is a lie.

Thanks for the interesting links. I enjoy reading real science, and layman's terms are fine for me. What I don't enjoy are mutual insults which provide no help in sorting out the conflicting claims.

In the above instance, for example, I don't see a "lie," but rather conflicting claims. There is a distinction between the observations and the theories. In the first instance you mention, what is observed is the fact that all galaxies are receding away from us, and the further away they are, the faster they are receding. One theory to explain that observation is "inflation."

The inflation theory was developed decades after the Hubbell observations in order to account for growing anomalies in the Big Bang theory. It seems to do a good job explaining some of these anomalies, but it can't be observed directly. For example, the theory posits an "inflaton," but the proposed candidate has not worked out.

My point being that people can differ on the theories used to account for observational data without being "liars." The YEC author points to the glass of Big Bang theory being half empty, while you see it as half full. I've read articles by some other famous creationist writer who is a huge proponent of the Big Bang. Hopefully these 2 creationists can disagree about the Big Bang without hurling personal accusations at each other, and hopefully scientists who support aspects of the standard model can do the same.

I think, the real tension today is with the democratic social system that tends to neo-paganism.

Agreed.

The anger is toward the Pharisees entrapping Jesus, rejecting Him and engineering His execution. Is there any sociopolitical advice in these?

The object of the homilies by St. John Chrystostom was to respond to an immediate need at the very time he was preaching, to dissuade Christian Judaizers from participating in Jewish ceremonies. For him this was an issue that was totally au courant, just as it was some 1,500 years later for Pope Benedict XIV, and just as it is for us, apparently, based on the reaction to Bishop Williamson's remarks.

That is not a dogmatic teaching,

There are several different levels of dogma. Any encyclical from the pope is a definitive teaching.

nor is it of patristic roots.

Pope Benedict XIV himself pointed out the many sources from which he drew, many statements by popes and saints. As far as patristic goes (a much overused word), refer to the following post with the 8 sermons by St. John Chrysostom. As you pointed out there, the sorts of things he says are not unique to him by any means.

He points out historical precedent, but it is not a de fide teaching for all times.

My point is that this has been the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church over the course of many, many centuries. And of course, as you have pointed out, it began in the Gospels and in the lives of the Apostles.

It cannot therefore be correct to say that such statements are "not orthodox."

I read the fathers of the Church daily, and I do come across some strong language, but it is always confined to the historical conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees and the persecution of the Church immediately after that.

Perhaps your reading hasn't extended to St. John Chrysostom. Here are texts of his 8 sermons against the Jews in which he said things like:

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs.

(2) But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html

Some of the conclusions toward the end cannot please a Jew, and they are unorthodox. It is not the position of the Church that the Jews and Christians should not mix, not have equal civil rights, or that Christianity and Judaism are in some kind of cosmic unending struggle.

This is indeed the stated teaching of the Catholic Church. It has been repeated many times. Here for example is an encyclical by Pope Benedict XIV (the same pope who wrote an encyclical condemning usury):

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14aquo.htm

We adopt the same norm of action as did the Roman Pontiffs who were Our venerable predecessors. Alexander III forbade Christians under heavy penalties to accept permanent domestic service under Jews. "Let them not continually devote themselves to the service of Jews for a wage." He sets out the reason for this in the decretal Ad haec, de Judaeis. "Because Jewish ways do not harmonize in any way with ours and they could easily turn the minds of the simple to their own superstitions and faithlessness through continual intercourse and unceasing acquaintance." Innocent III, after saying that Jews were being received by Christians into their cities, warns that the method and condition of this reception should guard against their repaying the benefit with evildoing. "They on being admitted to our acquaintance in a spirit of mercy, repay us, the popular proverb says, as the mouse in the wallet, the snake in the lap and fire in the bosom usually repay their host." The same Pope stated that it was fitting for Jews to serve Christians rather than vice versa and added: "Let not the sons of the free woman be servants of the sons of the handmaid; but as servants rejected by their lord for whose death they evilly conspired, let them realize that the result of this deed is to make them servants of those whom Christ's death made free," as we read in his decretal Etsi Judaeos. Likewise in the decretal Cum sit nimis under the same heading de Judaeis, et Saracenis, he forbids the promotion of Jews to public office: "forbidding Jews to be promoted to public offices since in such circumstances they may be very dangerous to Christians." Innocent IV, also, in writing to St. Louis, King of France, who intended to drive the Jews beyond the boundaries of his kingdom, approves of this plan since the Jews gave very little heed to the regulations made by the Apostolic See in their regard: "Since We strive with all Our heart for the salvation of souls, We grant you full power by the authority of this letter to expel the Jews, particularly since We have learned that they do not obey the said statutes issued by this See against them"

And to show that this was not a new or eccentric opinion, he quoted some of the many previous papal bulls that had said the same thing:

It is enough to peruse decretals with the heading de Judaeis, et Saracenis; the constitutions of Our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs Nicholas IV, Paul IV, St. Pius V, Gregory XIII and Clement VIII are readily available in the Roman Bullarium. To understand these matters most clearly, Venerable Brothers, you do not even need to read those. You will recall the statutes and prescripts of the synods of your predecessors; they always entered in their constitutions every measure concerning the Jews which was sanctioned and ordained by the Roman Pontiffs. I read the fathers of the Church daily, and I do come across some strong language, but it is always confined to the historical conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees and the persecution of the Church immediately after that.

Counting hands has nothing to with truth.

It is relevant in some cases, including this one, for the following reason: The main argument used in favor of evolution, both here on FR and in the wider society, goes like this, "EVERYONE believes in the theory of evolution, except for a few toothless, barefoot, hillbillies who are too stupid to understand it."

The number of people who believe in evolution becomes a relevant issue in that case. And the fact is, most people do not. Despite decades of coercive propaganda, you have not been able to make your case to most Americans.

She’ll just move on to some other abusive, demeaning relationship like as not.

Looks like she already has -- from the article:

Ernie Raines said his daughter has moved back into the apartment she had shared with her boyfriend of more than a year.

Then take a look at the budding universe model. There are lots of others out there. The Big Bang is just a theory that may have outlived it usefulness.

Exactly. The latest theory is that an infinite number of universes were created, and we happen to live in the one that allows life.

The first sentence is a flat-out lie.

Is it? Perhaps you can substantiate your calumnious assertion. Here is the footnote to the first sentence:

1. See “An Open Letter to the Scientific Community” on cosmologystatement.org, in which hundreds of scientist express their agreement with the statement “The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples.”

Oh shut up! Just kidding!

LOL!

Although you're being humorous, that is what the dialog between the two "Climates of Thought" amounts to: each side telling the other "Oh shut up."

Of course, that always leaves me wondering: Why does he want to change the subject in the first place?

I just read a very interesting essay on that topic, written around the Twenties or Thirties. The essay was called "Climates of Thought." I've forgotten the name of the author, but he made reference early in the essay to some thoughts of Bertrand Russell.

The point of the essay is that devotees of the new scientific mindset are both ignorant of and hostile to all modes of intellectual reasoning. Science used to be proud to be known as "natural philosophy," but now they utterly abhor any connection between "science" and "philosophy."

As your interlocutor pointed out in a recent comment, he rejects all thought that passes beyond the scope of "hypothesis, testing, new hypothesis, testing, new hypothesis, etc."

One can recognize that his method has produced some significant results in the field of scientific discovery, while still pointing out the fact that this type of reductionist approach to the intellectual life is inherently dehumanizing.

According to the author of this essay (who was a secular humanist), any possible dialog between St. Thomas Aquinas and a modern scientist was impossible because their respective modes of thinking were so utterly foreign to each other.

One witnesses the author's thesis proven in action here on these evolution threads where the respective disciples of teleological thought and non-telelogical thought are virtually incapable of communication with each other.

Interesting article.

I see that the argument used against you by the pro-Darwin commentors on this thread consists of, “If I was as stupid and ignorant as you are, I’d keep my mouth shut.”

“We evolutionists, on the other hand, are all McArthur Genius award winners.” (I wonder how many of them have ever matured as far as having been on a date?)

What I wanted to point out, however, is that this thread is well over 400 comments at the time I am writing. Isn’t it interesting that your article has generated so much response when it is, according to them, so ignorant, so stupid, so embarrassing to all of us REAL scientists that it brings a blush to our cheeks to see such inanities written in public?

Perhaps somewhere around comment 800 or 1200 they will tire of insulting you and demonstrate how matter at the atomic level spontaneously begins to transmit and receive information prior to the existence of life forms.

But what do I know, I’m just one of the barefoot hillbillies who stupidly continues to believe in God.

Wow, after reading your screed the first thought that came to my mind is, do you know her personally, and if not, on what are you basing your opinion??

On the posted ARTICLE! I notice that, like yourself, none of the supporters of government violence against families bothered to read the actual article. Whose that Freeper whose tagline is "Proudly posting without reading the article since 1998"?

Carolyn Jessop's own daughter is writing a book about what it was like living with this single mother who felt she had a mission to incite another Waco in Texas, but who was incapable of caring for her own children. If you had read the posted article you would have known that.

Do YOU defend the practices of the FLDS?

Typical liberal inability to comprehend the topic combined with personal ad hominem attacks. You can read for yourself the concerns I posted about people like yourself justifying the government invasion of homes to take hundreds of children away from their families because of their religious beliefs.

Especially with the new administration, is it really that hard to imagine the same scenario that happened in Texas happening all across the country? I can foresee the day not far away when parents who teach their children that sodomy is a crime against God will be called "abusers" and have their children taken away from them and given to homosexual foster parents.

It's already starting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1130066/They-say-old-care-grandchildren-Social-workers-hand-siblings-gay-men-adoption.html#

Then why do you defend them? I am honestly scratching my head.

Why do you defend the state coming into homes and taking away more than 400 children? I am honestly tearing my hair out when I think that so-called "conservatives" think it's A-okay to send tanks into someone's homes and take nearly 500 children off into "foster homes."

This is what it was always about. Today's news item confirms that the state found some whack-job single mother to be the spokesperson for creating enough hysteria to kidnap hundreds and hundreds of children.

Those could be my children next -- or yours. And you support it. That's what has me scratching my head.

I just remembered what the FLDS call it! Bleeding the Beast! Any thoughts about that? I resent it & so do many people.

That has been proven to be a complete hoax. You resent something that doesn't exist.

Facts don't fit claims of FLDS welfare fraud http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2159063/posts