[_ Old Earth _] Evolution and morality

[cupid dave]

Do you have comparative figures over several years? How do these statistics match up with other countries' experiences? And what about other socio-economic factors? For example, if stepfather families, mother custody families and all others are disproportionately represented in economically disadvantaged groups, then this becomes a variable requiring factoring into the conclusions drawn from the data and influences decisions on how best to deal with the attendant problems. And to what extent do the figures vary across different socio-economic groups experiencing the same family situations?

Now the shoe is on your foot to show a correlation equals the cause when poverty is related to single mothers on welfare.

What seems to be rational is the Single Mothers are poor because they are solely dependent on Welfare, since they have no bread winner in the household.


Show us that crime is a result of poverty by comparing married couples raising families in poverty with Single Mothers in poverty.

 

[lordkalvan]

Now the shoe is on your foot to show a correlation equals the cause when poverty is related to single mothers on welfare.

I take this to mean you have access to no such comparative data. And I wasn't suggesting that there is a causal effect in this, but rather asking whether your conclusions included taking such socio-economic data into account.

What seems to be rational is the Single Mothers are poor because they are solely dependent on Welfare, since they have no bread winner in the household.

Before or after they became single mothers? And what about the experiences of single mothers not on welfare? How do cross-country experiences differ?

Show us that crime is a result of poverty by comparing married couples raising families in poverty with Single Mothers in poverty.

This isn't a dog I have in this fight. I am not suggesting that criminal activity is a consequence of poverty alone, but rather that it is one of several influential factors that impinge on the argument you are making.

ETA you may find this blog interesting, written as it is by a university sociologist. It contains many links and citations to extensive studies around the subject of family inequality, its causes and its effects:

http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/

 

[Atothetheist]

Alright, now that I can finally post...

Here is what I meant, Grazer didn't put all of what I said ( I know he didn't mean to.)

Basic Morality, or the Universals most of us seem to share, Do not Kill, Etc, are innate and ingrained through us by evolution because it is a beneficial adaptation.

Society has a Bigger role to play in specific morality ( Western vs Eastern), but it is not the source of our Basic Morality.

This was my position.

 

[cupid dave]

I take this to mean you have access to no such comparative data.

And I wasn't suggesting that there is a causal effect in this, but rather asking whether your conclusions included taking such socio-economic data into account.

Family inequality requires only common sense and the reminder that parents once prepared their teens to stand on their own two feet by wisely refraining from getting pregnant before thinking about the expense of rent and food.

Part of the present situation, where poverty and Single Mothers go together is found in the fact that Welfare requires the below poverty levels financial situation before a check will be forth coming every month.

It is almost an oxymoron to wonder why dependent mothers are poor since that is what these unwed women must maintain, i.e.; poverty, in order to qualify for the Welfare.
They also must remain unwed.

And, they must be sure not to take employment which could border on earnings that will require them to leave public housing , give up food stamps, and relinquish their monthly checks.

 

[cupid dave]

Alright, now that I can finally post...

Here is what I meant, Grazer didn't put all of what I said ( I know he didn't mean to.)

Basic Morality, or the Universals most of us seem to share, Do not Kill, Etc, are innate and ingrained through us by evolution because it is a beneficial adaptation.

Society has a Bigger role to play in specific morality ( Western vs Eastern), but it is not the source of our Basic Morality.

This was my position.

You are absolutely right and supported by other researchers who find evidence that we are social animals and like tghe ants, communitarianism has been the factor in our successful evolution so far.

However, you are confirmed in that, the Beautiful Mind of Nash, the Noble Prize Winning Mathematician who won that award for mathematically proving what you say using Game Theory.




Nash was awarded the Noble PEACE prize for his mathematical PROOF, ...(in Game Theory), which CALCULATED that, the strategy which gave the greatest benefit to that member and to the group, (BOTH), was that strategy which benefited the group, over the individual.

He proved also that such strategy benefited the individual MORE than the "individualistic" strategy.

 

[lordkalvan]

Family inequality requires only common sense and the reminder that parents once prepared their teens to stand on their own two feet by wisely refraining from getting pregnant before thinking about the expense of rent and food.

Part of the present situation, where poverty and Single Mothers go together is found in the fact that Welfare requires the below poverty levels financial situation before a check will be forth coming every month.

It is almost an oxymoron to wonder why dependent mothers are poor since that is what these unwed women must maintain, i.e.; poverty, in order to qualify for the Welfare.
They also must remain unwed.

And, they must be sure not to take employment which could border on earnings that will require them to leave public housing , give up food stamps, and relinquish their monthly checks.

If you don't have the comparative and other data referred to, just say so. As it stands, these comments seem to amount to little more than a diatribe more suited to the political hustings.

 

[AlexBC]

So now show me that these statistics are supported by similar studies in other countries and that the only cause is the lack of a father in the familial home. What do the statistics show for children in single-parent homes where the single parent is the mother? What about family units where the two parents are same-sex? What about family homes where there is a step-father? If you look at socio-economic groups for the types of behaviour you have cited above, what does this tell you about causal relationships?

Also, we have to know why they are fatherless? Is the father not in the picture because he was abusive/in jail/left home/moved in with another woman? Then the father's actions are also leading to these statistics you quote rather than the simple absence.

And the point about the parents both being same-sex is very valid.

 

[Barbarian]

 

[cupid dave]

Again, simply asserting a correlation exists does not demonstrate that the asserted correlation actually exists. What other variables might affect the data you are looking at?

You need to do a thugh reading on the subject using a source whom you respect rather than banter back and forth with me.
If what I have told you here seems less than convincing, I recommend the rather indepth study just published in book form called "Coming Apart."

It ought inform you in a way which will remove all the preconceived excuses you have feed into.


A street in the Fishtown neighborhood of Philadelphia, Charles Murray's symbol of white working-class malaise.
COMING APART
The State of White America, 1960-2010
By Charles Murray

Charles Murray, the influential conservative scholar and provocateur, believes this story is wrong. In his new book, “Coming Apart,†Murray flips the script that has energized Republican politics and campaigns since Richard Nixon: the white working class, he argues, is no longer part of a virtuous silent majority. Instead, beginning in the early 1960s, it has become increasingly alienated from what Murray calls “the founding virtues†of civic life. “Our nation is coming apart at the seams,†Murray warns — “not ethnic seams, but the seams of class.â€

 

[DarkHorseRising]

There are some cases in nature where altruism is beneficial; but there's far more (in my experience anyhow) where the Nash equilibrium is to defect. Game theory alone can't explain it as well as ethologists would like.

 

[Atothetheist]

There are some cases in nature where altruism is beneficial; but there's far more (in my experience anyhow) where the Nash equilibrium is to defect. Game theory alone can't explain it as well as ethologists would like.

Again, asserting without evidence is the same, to me, as having no evidence for your claim.

How about you search it up? Provide me with Christian Bias- free sources?

 

[cupid dave]

Originally Posted by DarkHorseRising
There are some cases in nature where altruism is beneficial; but there's far more (in my experience anyhow) where the Nash equilibrium is to defect. Game theory alone can't explain it as well as ethologists would like.


///


Again, asserting without evidence is the same, to me, as having no evidence for your claim.

How about you search it up? Provide me with Christian Bias- free sources?

The easiest case to be made would be the Socialnsects like the Ants, termites, and bees.

Since we are a social animal, the evolution seems to be driving us inot one Global Village where some day War will stop and one universal Police Force will regulate Law and Order.

But there is also Mathematical Proof as was submitted by Nash, in his Game Theory which won him a Noble Prize:


The strategy leading to the "best result for you" is frequently (if not always) a much lower probability than the strategy leading to the "best result for the group", and a cost benefit analysis leads to the combination of probability of success with perceived benefit as being highest with an appropriate group strategy rather than the purely individualistic one.

In short a Win/Win approach even has better odds of getting implimented.

 

[Asyncritus]

Using the usual evolutionary extrapolation technique, there will be no violent crime round about 2150, and after that, everybody will be doing good as well.

And round about the 1900's there was no violent crime at all. Hmm.

Have I got that right?

 

[Atothetheist]

Using the usual evolutionary extrapolation technique, there will be no violent crime round about 2150, and after that, everybody will be doing good as well.

And round about the 1900's there was no violent crime at all. Hmm.

Have I got that right?

I don't think so, but... Its up for what they think.

 

[cupid dave]

Using the usual evolutionary extrapolation technique, there will be no violent crime round about 2150, and after that, everybody will be doing good as well.

And round about the 1900's there was no violent crime at all. Hmm.

Have I got that right?

There is very little crime in America outside of the intercities where we have collected most of the fatherless kids.

What America needs think about is the menace of these barbarians within who are now finding us prey in even closed fenced off communities like people build in Florida.

The Tryvons who are raised without a live in supporting father, raised on Welfare by single mothers are now scouting the more affluent neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, the patriarchs of Islam are sharpening swords as they see our feminist and gay society rejecting combat and military defense in exchange for growing expenditures in Welfare, prisons, and Health Care to the everyone.

Crime does require action to supress it.
That also rises the spector of a Dictator, especially in a nation so equally divided about the cause of crime.
The Left ignores that centuries of poverty in America while crime remained very low, but claims it isthe cause of the oresent problem.
The Right says it is Welfare and incentives to have fatherless kids.
Congress is grid lock as both side want the job, and must serve their constituencies.

This is exactly what ushered in Hitler, the bad economy and the grid lock and the depression.

 

[AlexBC]

This is exactly what ushered in Hitler, the bad economy and the grid lock and the depression.

Wow. That came out of nowhere. Did the Great Depression usher in a new Hitler?

No.

 

[Atothetheist]

Wow. That came out of nowhere. Did the Great Depression usher in a new Hitler?

No.

Correlation does not imply causation.

I have no idea what they are argueing... I am just going to enjoy the debate.

 

[Barbarian]

Using the usual evolutionary extrapolation technique, there will be no violent crime round about 2150, and after that, everybody will be doing good as well.

That's what creationists do. For example, they extrapolate from the current magnetic field changes, that the Earth is very young. In fact, as in the case of crime, it fluctuates, and extrapolation (as evolutionists will tell you) is very dangerous without some careful consideration.

And round about the 1900's there was no violent crime at all. Hmm.

Have I got that right?

Perfect creationist thinking.

 

[Barbarian]

There is very little crime in America outside of the intercities where we have collected most of the fatherless kids.

The gap between city and suburban violent crime rates declined in nearly two-thirds of metro areas. In 90 of the 100 largest metro areas, the gap between city and suburban property crime rates narrowed from 1990 to 2008. In most metro areas, city and suburban crime rates rose or fell together.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/re...hael/0526_metropolitan_crime_kneebone_raphael

 

[cupid dave]

Wow. That came out of nowhere. Did the Great Depression usher in a new Hitler?

No.

It did contribute to what happened.

Germany had been doing exactly what America is now doing, (in China), pay her Bills by borrowing from the USA, until the sudden Crash of 1929.

That Crash effectively stopped the strong American economy from being able to make loans to Germany.

Germany had been meeting the payments imposed upon her by England and France as art of the peace treaty, but suddenly, could not borrow any money.
The economic situation and the political gridlock as we see in America today froze the German government the way it is now doing in Congress.

The next move was simply not to pay the money due and insall Hitler.