devildog

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_47/b3960108.htm "Similarly, 28% [of Americans] have a college degree" Do you think that means each year, 28% of Americans are graduating college? Or are even in college? FAIL try again... I love irony :) BTW, I just did a down and dirty calc based on your total population of raped numbers. Given approx 312M people, 156M females, 17% of which have currently been raped, that's a total of 26.5M. Divide by the avg life expectancy of 75 years and you get 353,600 rapes per year -- which of course, leads you right back to my original comment and note that the number of false accusations per rape is no where near 1:10000, but 1:60 (or 1:90 if you prefer) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_47/b3960108.htm "Similarly, 28% [of Americans] have a college degree" Do you think that means each year, 28% of Americans are graduating college? Or are even in college? You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

A British study put the number of false allegations at about 3% (originally 8%, but was reduced after methodology was refined). Per your stats, out of 355k rapes a year and 35% reporting (124250), 3727 of those are false. That leaves 231000 unreported incidents, at a ratio of about 1 false claim per 62 unreported. Want to try again.. with our FAR more violent society on this side of the pond??? Interesting that you also forgot to take into account how many MILLIONS of women are raped... and the percentage of those not reported 17.6% of women in the United States have survived a completed or attempted rape. How many million American Women are there again???? I used the stats you provided for 1 year (1995). The figure 17.6% of all women is not "17.6% of women are raped in a year" but "to date" (their current lifetime). Thus, it is impossible to compute how many false accusations are made each year based on the total sum. Even if we use the current false report rate of crimes in general, about 2%, the ratio only changes to about 1:90. That's still a far, far cry from 1:10,000. I'm sure there's some personal stake in this for you, hence the tone of your posts, and probably some good info as well, but lashing out at anyone and everyone and labeling all males more or less as the spawn of Satan, bent on raping every last female out there doesn't exactly get your message out. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Funny thing there, we actually already know that painters make paintings, and that's why we would jump to that conclusion. Interestingly, though, when we see intricate colour patterns in nature we generally don't assume they're the result of a painter's actions. In fact, we're actually extremely good at recognising what is the result of intelligent activity and what isn't. Like seeing a universe so perfectly attuned for life :) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

A British study put the number of false allegations at about 3% (originally 8%, but was reduced after methodology was refined). Per your stats, out of 355k rapes a year and 35% reporting (124250), 3727 of those are false. That leaves 231000 unreported incidents, at a ratio of about 1 false claim per 62 unreported. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

I usually just print more money You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

I think you're giving the TSA way too much credit on their skills, TBH. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Sure they do. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/06/30/hln-wins-total-day-cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-june-29-2011/97034/ _____________________________________________ Who would want to watch a bunch of one sided morons ...I won't watch Hannity for that reason. At least on fox they have opposing viewpoints. Well, on Morning Joe, Pat Buchanan is a regular, and he's very conservative. Plus, Joe Scarborough is a former Republican Congressman with solid conservative credentials, whose district comprised the very-conservative Florida Panhandle. Mika's probably pretty liberal; but frankly, nobody really lets her talk much. My in-laws watch Fox News all the time, so it's inflicted upon me pretty often. I virtually never hear a liberal, or even a moderate, view get any kind of fair airing on Fox. From my POV, Fox is 99.9% one-sided. ___________________________________________ In a stunning rejection of network news and nightly news anchors, cable news, driven by the Fox News Channel and mouthy Bill O'Reilly, is now the top most trusted source—by a mile. In a new poll from Boston's Suffolk University, more than a quarter of the nation says Fox is tops when it comes to who they trust the most and O'Reilly is the most believable. "This poll shows two things: first, the network news have completely lost their brand. Second, the only network with any intensity is Fox News," says Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center. "Bottom line: the more they attack Fox, the stronger it is getting," http://gprs.cwmobile.comwww.mocospace.com/wap2/forum/forum_topic-view.jsp?topicid=2212777 Fox News == Obi Wan?! You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Must be the day for it. Just had my first cutaway today too, also on a bad pack by yours truly You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Sucks. OTH, I've done quite a few services w/o mentioning God in any form. Just depends on who's officiating I suppose. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

A few quotes from the Chron article linked to in the Fox blurb (you *did* see the link saying "Read the full story at Chron.com", yes?) : Right, so don't get the full story at Fox News. Get it somewhere else. I'm not entirely sure what your saying the full story is that they aren't giving since the incident you brought up appears to be separate, though related. And not getting any comments from someone who is currently being sued is pretty standard. Lawyers don't want their clients talking. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

When it catches fire and starts talking, I'll pay attention :) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

I think it's more people don't like the answers, not that it can't be solved. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

If you're thinking small claims, check the SOL. If its not up by now, I imagine it will be in the very near future. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Is the external force mashing your perfect playdoh sphere also perfect or has an imperfect external force been applied? Is something that is perfect really perfect if it can be rendered imperfect by an external imperfect force? Can a perfect external hammer exert enough perfect force to render a perfect playdoh sphere imperfect when the play-doh sphere is perfect to begin with? Seriously. The premise that your argument started with was that a perfect being might only be truly perfect if they were able to be imperfect of their own free will. Now you're saying that smashing playdoh balls with hammers explains your point. It's called an analogy, frequently used. And again, you're suggesting that permanence in our perfect playdoh sphere is a requirement, but it's not. Perfection for a sphere just means that all points along it's surface are equal distant from the center, for that is the definition of a sphere. Perfect does not require also being indestructible, or immutable, or immortal, or omnipotent, etc. though a perfect agent could have those traits as well. It just means it fulfills the all requirements of whatever it's attached to. So what is the definition of a perfect moral person (or any being)? Is it one that does morally good and cannot do evil and thus has no free will; it never really makes a choice? Or is a perfect moral agent something that has the ability to do evil, yet chooses to do good? Like I said, many would argue the latter. It would be the difference between say, a stepford wife and a real one. The step ford wife can and does all the things a real wife would be, but it doesn't actually love her husband. It's just going through its program without any choice involved. The real wife chooses to do things on her own, and that choice is an integral part of saying she loves her spouse. Moving on to more speculation than anything else, what if the perfect agent that was created (by an omnipotent, wholly good divine) could only be created as perfect as could be and not necessarily a representation of the final product? What I mean by that is, perhaps it is not logically possible to instantly create a morally perfect being (a being that has done no evil) that also chooses to always do good (because choice is based on experience and learning, and if it hasn't experienced or learned anything, it would be expected to make a bad choice eventually). If that's the case, and there are lines of thought that pursue it, our perfect being in the beginning is not the same as a perfect being in the end -- a perfect being that has the experience to say, "I know what evil is, and I will never choose it." This is a bit of a side, and not really my main point, obviously. We could also look at how eastern philosophies and religions handle evil, which is considerably different than how the western world views it. Of course, that would just further derail the thread,I think :) You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

How could a "perfect" person make "imperfect" choices to sin or do evil? To answer, I think we need to be clear on our definitions. Perfect, when applied to a person, in this sense would be one that acts wholly upon his own freewill. They are allowed to do right, or they are allowed to do wrong. Perfect, however, does not necessarily include "unchangeable." We could, theoretically at least, imagine a perfect sphere formed out of playdoh. We could also imagine taking that perfect sphere and mashing it with a hammer. The end result is, of course, a no longer perfect sphere. Was our perfect playdoh sphere any less perfect just because after it was formed it was changed? No, of course not. Thus, we can easily see permanence is not a required trait for perfection. The sphere was perfect because (according to merriam-webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect) it was without fault or defect (1a), it satisfied all requirements (1b), corresponded to an ideal abstract (1c), was a faithful reproduction (1d), and lacked no essential detail (3b). For our perfect person, however, the question really becomes, "Is staying perfect (permanence) a required trait to be morally perfect?" But perhaps a better way of looking at it is, "Which is better? A being that can only choose to do good (thus, unchangeable), and does good, or a being that can choose to do good or evil, but chooses good nonetheless?" I would argue that the latter being is in fact better, and thus, is closer to perfection than the foremost. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Well, I wouldn't exactly rely on merriam to give in depth answers to such deep questions :) That being said, using m-w's first definition, " being entirely without fault or defect : flawless " there are schools of thought that would indeed argue that any being without freewill is flawed, and thus not perfect. A perfect being, in most people's mind at least, can make his/her own choices. Hopefully they chose good, but they have to at least have the capacity to choose evil as well, otherwise they aren't really free. They aren't really making a choice. They're just programmed robots, or so the line goes. You don't have to agree with it, obviously. But I'm just saying there are lots of ideas, Christian or not, religious or not, that would support the notion. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

For some theologies and philosophies, perfect includes the ability to do wrong (freewill) and to corrupt oneself. Thus, the perfect creature is fully capable of becoming imperfect. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Who is this "we" you refer to? That which happens in nature, happens in nature. I may not like the outcome, but I can certainly acknowledge that genetic mutations occur, winds blow down houses, floods kill animals, fire burn, and animal kill each other. I don't find any of those things "wrong" or "abhorrent". They are simply nature. Well, I won't speak for you, specifically, but most people would have a problem with a mother eating her children, or group of neighbors banding together and slaughtering their rivals across the street, and then offer a defense of, "It's okay! It happens in nature!" That is all I was saying. Seems to be happening all the time to me ....Palistinians.... Algeria... Libya...Myanmar... Rwanda... Nigeria... Kosovo ... Bosnia... Kashmir ... Somalia ... Afghanistan... and the beat goes on. And would you call that a good thing? Doubtful. Which is more or less my point. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

+1 As for whitewater kayaking i believe it is more comparable to BASE jumping. There's few fatality lists on the net. If I'm not mistaking, years back it was regarded as the deadliest sport.....Now we have BASE. http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f11/aw-preliminary-whitewater-fatality-list-20296.html http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Article/view/articleid/1614/display/full/ Chart 1: Kayaking, Canoeing, Rafting Fatality Rates (per 100,000 Participants) K1 whitewater participants (1998) 2.9 Human-powered boaters (flatwater, ocean, whitewater) (1995) 0.4 Chart 2: Kayaking, Canoeing, Rafting Fatality Rates (per 100,000 User Days) All whitewater craft;1998 (based on managed-river study; 1998) 1.1 All whitewater craft from 1994-1998 (based on managed-river study) 0.86 You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Who is this "we" you refer to? That which happens in nature, happens in nature. I may not like the outcome, but I can certainly acknowledge that genetic mutations occur, winds blow down houses, floods kill animals, fire burn, and animal kill each other. I don't find any of those things "wrong" or "abhorrent". They are simply nature. Well, I won't speak for you, specifically, but most people would have a problem with a mother eating her children, or group of neighbors banding together and slaughtering their rivals across the street, and then offer a defense of, "It's okay! It happens in nature!" That is all I was saying. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

I certainly grant you its a reply to show that it is indeed found in nature, but I'd also add that "It's not natural" is just as weak of a defense (or attack) for the similar reasons if that's the usage of "natural". However, if one uses "natural" in the sense of inherent right or wrong (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural def #1), we have to start looking into questions of morality, if it exists, where it comes from, etc. That's a whole other can of worms. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

From a purely academic side, nature does all sorts of things we find to be abhorrent, wrong, etc. Simply appealing to "well it happens in nature" is a weak argument. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Stewart made the comparison, as did Poltifact. And it wasn't just TDS that those shows beat out: " February 2007 Political Knowledge Survey. Pew asked respondents 23 questions, such as who the vice president is, who the president of Russia is, whether the Chief Justice is conservative, which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives and whether the U.S. has a trade deficit. The ability to answer 15 of these questions correctly earned the respondent a place in the "high knowledge" category."...."Since Stewart was referring to "media viewers," this doesn’t undercut his point. However, the data includes an important counterpoint to Stewart’s claim: Viewers of at least one show on Fox scored quite well -- The O’Reilly Factor, of whom 51 percent made it into the high knowledge group. That made it equal to National Public Radio." and for Hannity: "April 2008 Media Survey. Compared to the 2007 survey, the 2008 survey looked at a wider variety of media outlets but used a narrower selection of questions designed to test the respondent’s current-affairs knowledge. The pollsters asked three questions: "Do you happen to know which political party has a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives?" "Can you tell me the name of the current U.S. Secretary of State?" And "who is the current prime minister of Great Britain?" Anyone who went three-for-three earned the high knowledge designation...And once again, particular Fox shows scored well above the average. Hannity & Colmes was one of only four choices to exceed 40 percent -- the others were the New Yorker/the Atlantic, NPR and MSNBC’s Hardball" So yes, at worst, Fox News viewers are as informed (or arguably, slightly better) than the national average. Watchers of Oreilly and Hannity oth, are more informed than the majority of viewers of other news shows (including other networks) as they both ranked in the top tier. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Apparently Stephen Hawking is unqualified as well. He says the Universe has a beginning. You might just want to check more carefully on Hawking's recent comments on the subject before continuing to make an ass of yourself. Hawking in fact was one of the first to point out that quantum mechanics forbids a singularity. So you've got no experiment for me eh? Not surprised. You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.