Tibarn Posted November 4, 2016 Posted November 4, 2016 11 hours ago, Muloghonto said: I have already provided links for the discourse. Here are some more: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/06/15/parents-fighting-may-have-long-lasting-effect-on-kids http://www.webmd.com/women/news/20060209/kids-harmed-when-parents-fight#1 As you can see, there is strong medical evidence that kids are better off with divorced parents who are civil with each other than parents who don divorce but fight endlessly. This also goes on to prove that since kids behaviours are affected by conflict (or lack of it), there is no connection between marriage/divorce and mental health of children. Ergo, Children who are not in a married household (i.e., parents never got married) but are good to each other are better off than children who are in a married household with acrimonious marriage. Therefore, the notion that 'marriage is sacred' is unscientific, religious nonsense. Right let's start here. I already stated that horrible parents have a negative impact on children. I have also provided actual research, based on your parameters, ie Europe, that divorce is associated with depression, joint custody is harmful, single parenthood is harmful, etc. You haven't provided anything substantial to counter it or prove, what you claimed. Even if arguing-parents are negative to children, you haven't shown that a divorce improves the outcome or a comparison of the outcomes. You are now shifting the goal posts. This was your original assertion. children are better off with two divorced parents that are civil with each other versus two parents who make each other miserable but refuse to divorce. The 'deleterious issues' with children are not because of divorce, it is because of the example parents set for the children. When parents act like babies, it is what makes children act out and have issues. Your new goalpost of two unmarried parents raising a happy kid is possible, yet unproven. Where is the evidence that such an arrangement is present in any significant degree. What is the resilience of such a relationship: do they last an actual 18 years, a rough time value for transition from child to adulthood? If not, they are just a hypothetical that doesn’t disprove anything. Many European countries lead in antidepressant usage. You claimed, first because the medications just came into production, which was false, and then that the higher numbers were because of greater acceptance/willingness for treatment and less stigma. The four documents you presented didn’t show any consistent change in acceptance and willingness for treatment, or attitude change in getting mental health treatment. The CDC report you gave, showed that the attitudes were pretty consistent across generations with 55+ and 18-24 both having similar of acceptance. The GSS stated there is no significant change. Those were the two most reputable studies you posted. Cornell also showed no significant change, it only showed that the amount of people that are getting treatment is higher, not that they are because of greater acceptance. Only 1 of the 4 showed any change in willingness to get treatment. I question why you didn't even read what you linked. They didn't show what you claimed, weakened your conclusion, and the one that supported your claim doesn't mathematically explain the quantum of difference. Only a 12% increase in acceptance vs the manifold increase in prevalence. Europe according to the World Happiness Report, self-reports 2 main factors for their happiness: 1) GDP per capita, a byproduct of capitalism and economic freedom. 2) Healthy life expectancy. Their overall happiness is only marginally higher than that of the US. Marriage is an evolutionarily conserved behavior and the basis of society. If you don’t know what conserved behaviors are, look them up. This is a simple concept in psychology and biology. It increases fitness for the members involved, particularly children (I made no claim that I only support monogamous marriage). You keep repeating A is true, not backed by evidence and using your statement that A is true as the basis of "disproving" actual evidence or the null hypothesis. You do this based on unwarranted, rather than warranted assumptions; this is textbook begging the question/circular reasoning. This has been consistent since the discussion began. 11 hours ago, Muloghonto said: A) marriage is sacred (see above) See above, you provided nothing of significance, yet claim to have made a point. 11 hours ago, Muloghonto said: B) Europe is 'socialist utopia because Europe needs USA to protect itself (EU's combined military strength is comparable to that of Russia, its only legitimate aggressor threat) Strawman you are misrepresenting my argument.On to the content: Socialism is the government control of the means of production/distribution/transaction/resources in general. The Scandinavian and W European countries are among the most economically free and have low regulations, thus they are capitalist. You are confusing a welfare programs with socialism. Many capitalist/libertarian thinkers support welfare measures. The current one that is getting traction in circles is UBI. The countries you tend to favor are among the most capitalist in the world. A socialist country is more like India or Venezuela.The aforementioned two countries have the government actually control resources and over-regulate economic activity/prices of goods. Much of W Europe, particularly the Nordic countries, are consistently among the top in freedom of enterprise, low regulation, EODB, etc. This fits well with their self-reported happiness index responses of high per capita GDP being the main contributor. Combined military strength doesn't mean much, especially now that the UK is gone. USA does protect Europe, you haven't shown otherwise. NATO is entirely dependent on the USA. If we ignore NATO and just consider only Europe, only Poland and UK even spend 2% of their GDP on military. France and Germany are both significantly below 2%, Belgium and Spain are below even 1%. This is not to mention that the EU doesn't have an army, so any coordinated action between "Europe" is jumping to conclusions. 11 hours ago, Muloghonto said: C) Europe's carbon footprint is artificially low since it imports food from the US ( US is a net food importer, not exporter, from the EU) Disjointed statement. The US is indeed a net food importer. That is irrelevant, especially since my argument was centered on meat. That the US net imports food doesn't change that Europe does as well, including from the US. The US exports large amounts of food as well, unlike Europe. One of those food sources, the one I mentioned, is meat, which has been increasing in consumption in Europe. Again, Europe's C footprint is artificially lower than say the US. It also doesn't change that their footprint isn't low by any standard. Here you can see data from the USDA. You claimed that Europe was a standard to follow in terms of ecologic responsibility, this is simply not the case. Granted the US has higher CO2 emissions than just about all European countries, but the Europeans are among the world leaders in emissions, with many, such as Germany, Finland, Norway of them emitting more per capita than China. To add to this, as you can see in the link, while the US has a consistent decline in emissions since the 80s, the European countries have no consistent trend of improvement; some are getting worse such as Norway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita Most of Europe (and Canada) are also at medium deforestation risk, unlike the US which is afforesting. There go the possible carbon sinks for all the C they pollute with. https://maplecroft.com/about/news/deforestation.html Thirdly, Meat consumption is increasing in many European countries. They don’t produce much meat, but they get much of their meat from the US. Also artificially lowering their C footprint. Admittedly some, like Belgium are declining is consumption, but others like Sweden and Germany have increased consumption. Info via http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E . Based on 2002 to 2009 comparisons. The US has been declining, though still a world leader in this regard. The reason this is important is because the meat industry, especially red meat, is one of the largest, yet most preventable sources of C emissions. It not only contributes emissions, but it also causes deforestation and puts a strain on water resources. 11 hours ago, Muloghonto said: D) Rome, Greece & Mongol Empire collapsed due to population collapse (we have categoric census info from Roman & Greek periods to refute this) You repeat your earlier strawman. I said it was a cofactor, that means it contributed, not that it was the single cause. You are also shifting the target. I claimed Sparta, you bring Greece. Sparta had a population decline of 20% overall in 200 years starting at 700 BCE. Their population of Similars declined from over 9000 to below 2000, closer to 1000. The Romans experienced a decline as well, culminating in the Julian marriage laws to rectify the situation. The aforementioned books/authors I mentioned lend credence to this being a cofactor. The Mongols experienced similar The Decline and Fall of the Mongol Empire is worth reading. Your claims regarding census data would only be relevant if they pertain solely to the aforementioned groups. Actual ethnic Romans, not slaves, naturalized Romans, etc. Similarly for the Mongols, their territory may have stable/increasing/decreasing population, but the actual Mongols are who are relevant. Either way, it would be best for you to provide said census data if you think it disproves what I say. 11 hours ago, Muloghonto said: E) Human sexual behaviour evolutionary has been monogamous or polygamous (we have evidence of polyandry & di-andry being far more prevalent in non-farming cultures, which represents over 90% of the existence of species homo sapiens) Again, you are shifting goalposts, this was your original argument: You are completely mistaken actually. We have plenty of evidence that 'nuclear family' is a relatively recent creation amongst species homo sapiens and the fundamental form of sexual propagation of homo sapiens is various forms of polyandry (or di-andry). The genetics say otherwise. My evidence already shows that monogamy in particular and polygamy were the predominant forms, not polyandry. You can also research yourself the evolution of Y chromosome in Chimps-Humans. This is based on DNA analysis. It gives the data from the entirety of our species’ evolution. Your evidences of polyandry were summarily taken apart earlier. They rely on micropopulations and deriving extrapolations based on them for greater human evolution is your logical leap. You are displaying a fundamental deficit of primary concepts in evolutionary biology and genetics. You have to improve this knowledge before arguing such points rather than making up your own rules for evolution, genetics, etc as you go ie that pseudoscientific response to the genetic data I presented from the Journal of American Genetics. Unless you have an actual peer-reviewed scientific counter, you are just arguing your wishes in the face of fact. Finally, your earlier argument accusing me of pedantry is another tu quoque fallacy on your part. Widespread/common are both vague terms that don’t give any numerical benchmark. From that you extrapolate what you claim to be the behavior of 90% of human history. You cannot extrapolate any numerical value from a parchment from Sumeria or a few unsuccessful micropopulations in the Amazon/India , let alone enough to prove what you claim. 11 hours ago, Muloghonto said: And above all, none of those arguments are inherently interlinked to cause a scenario of 'circular argument'. Begging the Question(A-->A) and Circular Logic(A-->B and B-->A) are two variations of each other in logic. You are consistently begging the question based on unwarranted assumptions with flimsy evidence when any is provided.
Recommended Posts