Just Thinking About Science Triggers Moral Behavior 347
ananyo writes "The association between science and morality is so ingrained that merely thinking about it can trigger more moral behavior, according to a study by researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara. The researchers hypothesized that there is a deep-seated perception of science as a moral pursuit — its emphasis on truth-seeking, impartiality and rationality privileges collective well-being above all else. The researchers conducted four separate studies to test this. In the first, participants read a vignette of a date-rape and were asked to rate the 'wrongness' of the offense before answering a questionnaire measuring their belief in science. Those reporting greater belief in science condemned the act more harshly. In the other three, participants primed with science-related words were more altruistic."
I hypothesize.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus this study doesn't explain evil mad scientists! What about those who use science to achieve world domination?
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody ever told them that deviating in the standard way isn't as much fun.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, those outliers are much hotter.
Re:I hypothesize.. (Score:5, Insightful)
funny, I wish more republicans thought about science.
Democrats too, but they are only quasi-evil.
Conversely, one would think that thinking about religion and faith would trigger moral behavior, but, sadly, I haven't found that to (generally) be the case. [ I'm not trolling, just offering my (disappointing) observation. Perhaps I need to meet a different (but not necessarily better) class of people... ]
Personally, I think most politicians only think about money, power and getting re-elected (perhaps the first two are redundant) - for their own selfish desires.
Re: (Score:3)
Belief in anothers experiences can't compare to belief in your own experiences.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> Conversely, one would think that thinking about religion and faith would trigger moral
> behavior
One wouldn't. A 2000+ year old book (older, in some cases) fraudulently constructed by ignorant, illiterate peasant halfwits from a time before justice and democracy is not conducive to challenging beliefs or finding accurate answers to relevant problems. That's why the most religious countries are the most fucked.
Re:I hypothesize.. (Score:5, Insightful)
A 2000+ year old book (older, in some cases) fraudulently constructed by ignorant, illiterate peasant halfwits from a time before justice and democracy
Youre knowledge of history is truly astounding. Do tell, when do you suppose the Roman Republic existed? Or the democratic Greek city-states?
Re:I hypothesize.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I hypothesize.. (Score:5, Interesting)
funny, I wish more republicans thought about science.
Democrats too, but they are only quasi-evil.
Conversely, one would think that thinking about religion and faith would trigger moral behavior, but, sadly, I haven't found that to (generally) be the case. [ I'm not trolling, just offering my (disappointing) observation. Perhaps I need to meet a different (but not necessarily better) class of people... ]
Personally, I think most politicians only think about money, power and getting re-elected (perhaps the first two are redundant) - for their own selfish desires.
Depends on the religion.
For at least one major religion, you don't need morality if you have forgiveness...
Re:I hypothesize.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly enough Republicans care a LOT about the economy and historically provide greater funding to the sciences than Democrats because of it. There are a few obvious exceptions like embryonic stem cell research that make headlines but by and large Republicans provide more funding to science. If you don't want to take my word for it youtube search for Neil DeGrasse Tyson talking about it.
What he said was except for the issues that have strong opposition from fundamentalist Christians.
So, aside from the fact that Republicans dislike when Science supports Evolution, that homosexuality is not exclusive to humans and might not be a mental illness, that there might not be mental racial or sexual superiority, that global climate change may be occurring or that it is influenced by man, studying the universe and trying to answer questions about how the universe came to be or how to get off this roc
Re: (Score:2)
funny, I wish more republicans thought about science.
They do. They think it's "a Lie straight from Hell".
I wish I was joking. Or at least that I was quoting a minor fringe Representative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is all Very Wrong! There is nothing in science to believe in
Wow, you really really don't understand science, do you?
Start with David Hume then move on to Karl Popper.
You've got an awful lot to learn.
I postulate (Score:2)
John Nash, and his Game Theory.
Warning: may not be applicable to you (Score:5, Insightful)
Note: Psychological studies performed on US undergraduates generally don't apply to humans in general.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/17x/beware_of_weird_psychological_samples/ [lesswrong.com]
Remembering the people who were Psych majors in school, I'd say that they probably were the least representative sample of humanity possible.
Blowing stuff up (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Is stuff people, Drethon?
-- A concerned reader
These people don't know how to conduct a study (Score:4, Informative)
Simply using scientific language isn't exactly science. It could rather be going after specificity. If you prime me with a bunch of IF/THEN TRUE/FALSE terms and then ask if something is wrong I'm going to be more inclined to give a more literal and less nuanced opinion.
For example, is it wrong to feed the bears? Of course it is... its against the rules, encourages the bears to see humans as a food source, and makes them less inclined to gather food from the wild. So... its wrong. But at the same time its not especially immoral.
If you prime me with true false information I'll just say its wrong. But if you expand the point there might be more going on there.
I don't think science has anything especially to do with morality. It does have a great deal to do with truth seeking but its truth seeking for its own sake and not some higher calling. That is not to say scientist are not moral people or that they're not helping humanity. Merely that there is no causal link between morality and science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, is it wrong to feed the bears? Of course it is... its against the rules, encourages the bears to see humans as a food source, and makes them less inclined to gather food from the wild. So... its wrong. But at the same time its not especially immoral.
What exactly do you mean? You just described all the reasons why it is immoral to feed wild bears, and then said it wasn't immoral. What's your argument that it's not immoral?
Re: (Score:2)
Its a matter of perspective.
Are pets wrong? Is it wrong to be nice to an animal? Bears are fairly intelligent so you could form all sorts of relationships with them.
Take the difference between a circus and a zoo.
The animals that perform tricks in zoos are generally held by many to be exploited animals that are abused for the amusement of an audience. While the "residents" of the zoo are considered humanely and well taken care of... but what does any of that really mean?
Again, it can get very complicated dep
Science is about truth (Score:2)
Science is about truth.
Faith can be about anything. Its make believe after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Faith is actually about truth. Whether you choose to believe that 'truth' is another story.
Re: (Score:2)
It's better to understand than to worship.
Related perspective: religiosity and intelligence (Score:3)
The relationship between religiosity and intelligence is also intriguing and not too dissimilar in its foundations.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence [wikipedia.org]
No low IQ people are atheists. :D
I guess that phenomenon is related to the current study on morals and beliefs in science.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a correlation between atheism and intelligence. But there are still plenty of idiotic atheists out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely? All the stupid people who accept religion just because would accept atheism just because.
Re: (Score:2)
As always it all depends how you look at things.
I'm not sure that thinking that the all powerful being who created the entire universe cares about you personally and more than that cares about your opinions on things and will make adjustments to the plans of his omniscient mind according to them has humility at heart.
Re: (Score:3)
Accidentally posted my original comment as an anon coward, so I'm responding as the first person who posted this subject line. I hope to make an effort at protecting your faith in humanity and perhaps more specifically, in the ignorant Christians you indict. If you're just a troll, then I'm sorry I'm wasting my time, but I hope that's not the case.
I never said, nor would I ever say would refuse to take medication because of my faith. Ironically enough, I am currently applying to medical school, but I think
Scientist discover that... (Score:2, Insightful)
scientists have above average morals.
In other news, 90% of all people say they are above average drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the fundamental reason these scientists conducted this study was to figure out why women wouldn't sleep with them.
Re: (Score:3)
In other news, 90% of all people say they are above average drivers.
99% of all people have above the average number of eyes and fingers.
Not all distributions are gaussian.
when the science is biology - human anatomy (Score:2)
my thoughts certainly aren't moral ;-)
everyone wants to believe their class is better (Score:2)
Scientists want to believe they are more moral, liberals want to believe they are more intelligent, etc etc etc and people exist to tell them what they want to hear. This is not news.
Makes sense to me (Score:2)
In a related study (Score:2)
The association between religion and the belief that âoe I am pure and you are going to hellâ is so ingrained that merely thinking about it can trigger more immoral behavior, according to a study by researchers at the University of Kansas. The researchers hypothesized that there is a deep-seated perception that my religion makes me better then you â" its emphasis on myth-seeking, self-importance and irrationality privileges above all else. The researchers conducted four separate studies to te
Really? (Score:2)
Reeeeeeealy? Weapons research? (physical, chemical, biological, your choice) Profitizing common herbs into expensive medicines? Researching social engineering? Moral? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Deja Vu (Score:2)
Science by definition is AMORAL (Score:2)
An ideology / process by definition does not morals, aka amoral. Only scientists are moral.
Science doesn't ask "Can we build nukes?" nor "Should we build nukes?" only _scientists_.
Re: (Score:2)
grammar fix: ... does not have morals ...
Re: (Score:2)
You're right of course, but your argument isn't particularly insightful, IMHO, because the distinction between people and things are understood by most people. That's why when people want to specifically refer to the ideology/process you label as just "Science" they use the name "Scientific Method". The term "Science" has different meanings, granted, but loosely seems to be shorthand for "scientific research done by scientists" (individually, in aggregate or all scientific activity as a whole). As such,
Collapse of society imminent (Score:2)
The problem today is that scientists can't do anything without acceptance from the moral masses. Want to cure cancer, you can, just don't you dare have a cage full of diseased mice in your lab because that is wrong. Want to cure genetic diseases, you can, just don't you dare try to use stem cells because some people consider that abortion. Want to solve world hunger, you can, just don't you dare splice a tomato gene with an eggplant. Want to prove the world is round, you can, just be respectful of those
Sciences versus Philosophy (Score:3)
The problem today is that scientists can't do anything without acceptance from the moral masses. Want to cure cancer, you can, just don't you dare have a cage full of diseased mice in your lab because that is wrong. Want to cure genetic diseases, you can, just don't you dare try to use stem cells because some people consider that abortion. Want to solve world hunger, you can, just don't you dare splice a tomato gene with an eggplant. Want to prove the world is round, you can, just be respectful of those that believe in 2000 years of lies and intolerance to truth.
I agree there are obvious scientific research that is immoral and unacceptable, but the problem now is that if this study is a truthful indication of the state of scientific research today, then science will fail, and with it, our civilization will collapse.
It is a common theory that the Roman Empire fell is because in essence stupid people out grew the ability for the intellects to solve their problems or improve social conditions. I'm afraid the trend is repeating. FUD is the new God.
There has been a push during the last 50 years to de-emphasize the study of philosophy when pursuing degrees in college and universities. Many have put forth that the lack of basic understanding that comes from studying the great philosophers is what leads to the issues you point out for both scientists and the public. In short, what you are really asking is at what point is too much too much? Where does the line get drawn between moral and immoral? Science cannot answer that question, but philosophy can.
belief in science (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:belief in science (Score:5, Insightful)
The beauty of science is that you don't have to believe in it, in the sense of 'to believe' meaning 'to accept on someone else's authority.' I point this out because I have a feeling I would be ranked extremely highly on this 'belief in science' scale while I consider myself to not believe in science at all; the authority of science derives from empirical testing and reason, not belief.
The beauty of science is that unless you have conducted the research yourself or performed the proofs yourself, you in fact are accepting things on someone else's authority. In philosophical parlance this is known as accepting the testimony of others. It holds true whether one relies on the testimony of learned scientists or religious leaders. In both cases, a belief system is created, codified, passed down and accepted by others.
Unless one does the empirical testing for themself, they do not have first had knowledge of the phenomenon being tested but rely on the testimony of others. How do we know the earth revolves around the sun? Most of us have not down the equations or performed the experiments to prove it, we have excepted the testimony of others. Granted if enough experts testify to the same thing it adds credence to their testimony, but still, we are accepting something as true as an act of faith that the others are correct.
As such, while science does involve empirical testing, its authority relies very much on the testimony of those who conduct that testing, in otherwords, belief. In the end, almost everything we "know" we don't actually know, but instead we believe - including where the authority of science comes from.
Disclaimer: I am not saying scientific belief is the same as religious belief nor am I raising religious inquiry upto the level of scientific inquiry, so please do not go there.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that only works in theory and for very few people at that. For the vast majority of people, their faith in their fellow man leads to a 'belief' in things that are called science but far from it. Loving science is what has turned me into a very harsh critic of many so-called sciences. The more I read about carbon dating, and how little science is actually involved, the more I realized that most people who hate religion have just as much faith in their false beliefs.
" the authority of science derives f
So what they are saying.... (Score:2)
So what they are saying is that society has so emphasized science that its pursuit has taken on the trappings of an ideology.
Gaping hole in the study (Score:2)
The first gaping hole I see in the study is that the scientist did not also have a group of participants who fill out questionnaires and do word scrambles and whatnot using non-scientific words and concepts, and see if that also makes a difference in how the groups respond to the date-rape case.
So they've only found evidence for half of their claim. They present no evidence that thinking about science, specifically, affects the subjects' morality more or less than does thinking about anything else.
The more
People mis-reding the summary (Score:2)
It doesn't say science depends on morality or that science is inherently moral, immoral or amoral. It says that when people think 'scientifically' they tend to consider moral issues more often or in greater depth. That may because those understanding the scientific principles are also aware of the lack of inherent 'morality' in them. So they are motivated to think beyond the pure science.
conclusion is weirdly phrased (Score:2)
Here's the first 2 lines of the conclusion synopsis: These studies demonstrated the morally normative effects of lay notions of science. Thinking about science leads individuals to endorse more stringent moral norms and exhibit more morally normative behavior.
"lay notions of science" = shit people think might be scientific - for some people this includes homeopathy. For nearly everyone it includes some totally bogus nonsense.
"exhibit more morally normative behavior" = behave more in accordance with mainstr
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems like the study's results would be consistent with either hypothesis...
Or logical thinking.
Heck, just plan "thinking" would probably do since most people don't bother to do that before reacting.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like the study's results would be consistent with either hypothesis...
Or logical thinking.
Except that altruism is not logical.
Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
To a certain degree it is. Your genes will not survive in the long run if your species does not.
Re: (Score:3)
Otherwise known as "enlightened self-interest".
Re:Moral thinking, or Black-and-White thinking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that altruism is not logical.
It's extremely hard to find an example of pure altruism that doesn't have benefits for one's self or family/community.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that altruism is not logical.
It's extremely hard to find an example of pure altruism that doesn't have benefits for one's self or family/community.
Not so hard. People donate money/materials to non-local charities, etc... In my case, I also give money to friends in need (no strings attached), some I (still) haven't seen in 20 years, but only occasionally talk/email with. I've given about $70k to friends in the last 7 years. The only self-benefit is to my karma.
Re: (Score:2)
The new agers forgot to bring that little tidbit of information over. Bhagavad Gita explains it all.
Re: (Score:2)
The only self-benefit is to my karma.
So you don't feel completely ambivalent about making these donations?
I'm not saying you should - "giving is its own reward" is probably a more ancient saying than modern English - just that being charitable makes most people feel good.
Re: (Score:2)
The only self-benefit is to my karma.
So you don't feel completely ambivalent about making these donations? I'm not saying you should - "giving is its own reward" is probably a more ancient saying than modern English - just that being charitable makes most people feel good.
You're correct that I "feel good" (or, at least, not bad) about being able to help and actually helping my friends (and a few charities), but I'm not sure I'd qualify that (or any change in my karma) as a "benefit" to myself/family/community with regard to the the original poster's comment, though perhaps I'm not looking through the same lens. Regardless of my karma, a coffee at Starbucks still costs $1.50 (or whatever) - and my wife is still dead [ Remember Sue... [tumblr.com] (as I've mentioned before) ] ....
I help
Re: (Score:3)
Except that altruism is not logical.
Altruism by an individual is not logical.
Altruism within a group is an extremely successful survival strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Where the crap did you dig up that definition of "moral?"
I went back to basics and made choices.
I am a person. Do I have value? Yes, I've decided that I do.
Does humanity have value? Yes, I've decided that it does.
So, the most fundamental basis of moral behavior has to be, "Does it cause us to destroy ourselves."
If behavior causes us to destroy ourselves, it is immoral. Full stop.
After that, I begin to consider the quality of the human experience. It is always better to exist than to not exist, but it is better to avoid suffering and afford humans dignity aft
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I am a person. Do I have value? Yes, I've decided that I do.
Does humanity have value? Yes, I've decided that it does.
The trick with morality is not in making statements - it's about understanding why something is so? Why does any of us have value, and why does humanity have value? I agree that humanity has value, because in the universe we know humanity is the only sentient species. The lowest of the low has value because of the consequences of not assigning value to them. Even then, we get in to the personhood debate which is not an easy one to resolve, but can reach certain standards through reason. For example, I'd con
Re: (Score:2)
I've been putting together a system that I think would be effective in pulling us out of this nosedive. I started in on an essay to explain it at one point, though I haven't worked on it recently... been designing the software needed to support it.
http://slashdot.org/journal/492191 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The human cultures that are most exposed to modern scientific education are also those with birth rates below replacement levels. So, for whatever reason, scientific education is co-related with the decline of human civilization.
Not true. Humans have increased their numbers until the entire planet is full of us and vast areas of its surface have been taken over to provide us the food that we need. In an environment with massive, untapped natural resources which can be developed and exploited to serve an every increasing population you may have a point that to sustain civilization you need to grow and expand. This is arguably no longer the case.
If we want to sustain our civilization we have to find a way to switch from growth th
Re: (Score:2)
The human cultures that are most exposed to modern scientific education are also those with birth rates below replacement levels. So, for whatever reason, scientific education is co-related with the decline of human civilization. If it leads to the decline of human cultures, it is not moral.
They're also those with effective/available birth control, female equality, and education.
Don't worry, though - as soon as we build our AI's and fusion reactors, humans will have more time to boink, pursue art, and raise
Re: (Score:3)
The human cultures that are most exposed to modern scientific education are also those with birth rates below replacement levels
Which is good, because the Earth is beyond carrying capacity. Increasing the population when we're about to run out of petroleum based fertilizers and become unable to feed billions of people is immoral.
So, for whatever reason, scientific education is co-related with the decline of human civilization.
Population is not the same as civilization. Civilization is not even proportional
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Earth can easily sustain 10 to 14 billion humans with a good use of technology. That could go into the hundreds of billions if we could accept getting our protein from algae vats.
Re: (Score:2)
What is our goal ? To fuck until we can't move ?
Our basic nature is to breed. We can follow that or grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not suggesting we should. But we can build up and down. We don't really need to spread out that much until we are well on our way into the 10s of billions. The point I am making is that we are a long long way from being genuinely overpopulated if we actually used our technology.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the wrong question.
There is no amount of people I consider "enough".
Overpopulation does not occur when you have more than "enough", it occurs when you have to many.
And the 7 odd billion people we have now are not to many. Every one of us could live a western lifestyle if we used our existing technology reasonably. That means building a metric crap ton of solar energy plants in the desert. That means removing sequestered fossil fuels as our transportation energy source. That means building an effecti
Re: (Score:2)
We could live well forever, the clock would not be ticking as you put it. I am talking about a permanent population. We have no need to use non-renewable materials. We could power all of North America with a solar thermal power system covering a square less than 100 miles on side. Make it a little bigger and we can turn sea water into fresh water and refill the Ogallala aquifer. Put a similar one on each continent and completely end the worlds reliance on fossil fuels. This requires no new technology.
We ge
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Our basic nature is to breed. We can follow that or grow up.
The fundamental duty of all living things is to recreate themselves. After you do, something changes inside you that causes you to realize that you're not the center of the universe. That's called "Growing Up".
If you haven't bred yet, you're still a child. You shouldn't be allowed to vote, any more than any other mewling babe.
That is the biggest BS I have read in a while. There are plenty of people that have bred multiple times and yet to grow up or actual act like adults or they let their kids run wild (being non-responsible towards their kids because they are selfish as parents.)
Re: (Score:2)
Dead people make good fertilizer. Come up with a better analogy.
Ever heard of Prions?
Dead people do NOT make good fertilizer.
Re: (Score:2)
Asimov's Trantor had, if I remember correctly, 40 billion at its peak and that was basically one planet-wide city. Or you could go up an order of magnitude or two and use Coruscant at a trillion people. Of course if you do that, you run into a problem [irregularwebcomic.net] or two [irregularwebcomic.net] or three. [irregularwebcomic.net] If you're wondering if a webcomic author is a good authority on the physics of a fictional city, he's not just a webcomic author. [dangermouse.net]
Of course, we COULD use that science to send some of those billions of people to planets or celestial bodies other
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Earth can easily sustain 10 to 14 billion humans with a good use of technology. That could go into the hundreds of billions if we could accept getting our protein from algae vats.
Or other [wikipedia.org] sources...
Re: (Score:2)
This confirms
It confirms nothing except that some people get away with bullshit studies.
feminist (misandric)
Oh, I can do the same thing: communists (mass murderers), capitalists (child enslavers), Microsoft users (clinical retards).
Re: (Score:3)
And this confirms you can not really spell Nazi.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a nice example of "correlation does not imply causation". They have found two beliefs associated with the same sort of bias and managed to demonstrate that they occur together in some people.
Re: (Score:2)
Science does not remove belief. It removes the baselessness of belief. Belief in that which is proven is viable under science. Belief in that which is disproved is not. There are shades of grey in between those two absolutes.
To get metaphorical, belief is tempered by the flame of science. The ephemeral wisps of faith are burned away, leaving behind a purer stronger truth.
RTFA (Score:3)
The researchers performed four studies, and only one was looking for mere correlation. Unfortunately that is the only one the summary mentions. One of the other studies primed the subjects with scientific words in a crossword puzzle, and just thinking about those words caused people to behave more morally. Now I am not sure how good the controls in their experiment were but it looks like they tried to remove correlation from the other three studies.
You can attack their methodology, but based on their resear
Re: (Score:2)
I read the article. My point is that I suspect the appearance of causality, even in those cases where participants were conditioned with "scientific" or "non-scientific" lingo beforehand, is mediated by political propaganda, which form a subconscious association between "science" and political liberalism (thanks to the right wing's persistent popular use of anti-intellectualism in conjunction with anti-human ideologies). Talk about "sciencey" things, and you'll fire up the parts of a typical American's brai
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In my scientific mind, I believe that most of the "harm" done by rape is just people being pissy little coddlefish. We stand up a whole horrific narrative about rape, burn it into everyone's mind, and then wonder why it's so damaging when someone gets raped. People who don't buy into it see it as an experience to be survived or escaped, and have no abnormal psychological trauma. Many people develop more psychological trauma after being raped due to the whole "group support" thing, feeling like they're n
Re: (Score:3)
Science also tells us that women are not men; but people use "scientific" arguments to argue that they're the same. No social or physical differences, no intellectual differences, nothing. Women and men think exactly the same way and are just as capable at all tasks in exactly the same situations at all times.
Citation?
Scientifically this is bunk.
The "bunk" isn't science's, it's yours. You seem to be using your concept of "science" as your personal cover for your symptoms of psychopathy.
Re: (Score:3)
You are in need of some serious help.
Seldom have I seen someone go to such lengths to justify their own psychopathy.
Re: (Score:3)
See the above AC post for a perfect example of my point. Note, how the right-wing mindset approaches the issue of rape: it's the fault of the woman for wearing the wrong kind of clothes (seducing those poor, innocent, helpless men into raping them). Such attitudes indicate the typical connection between right-wing ideology, and assigning less blame and approbation to the rapist in a date-rape scenario (she must've deserved it for inviting him in for drinks, right?).
Re:Political correlation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Political correlation (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do women wear high heels shoes...
Have you ever considered asking a woman about why she chooses the clothing she wears, instead of simply assuming that all women's lives and decisions revolve around becoming receptacles for your penis? Ever think someone might want to wear clothes that they find attractive (or, perhaps just comfortable), without doing so to beg for non-consensual sex? Would you consider a man wearing spiffy attractive clothes to be asking to get ass-raped by any homosexual who found them attractive? Are you so psychotically out-of-control that you can't keep your dick in your pants at the sight of a little cleavage or tall shoes? Note, many human societies permit women to be topless without constantly being raped... it's not a "natural, scientifically-proven fact" that the typical male is so helplessly weak-willed that they can't hold back from rape sprees at the slightest provocation. If you have personal problems with this, then please take a tiny bit of personal responsibility and lock yourself up away from human society, rather than demand every female wear burqas to prevent your uncontrollable rape-rages.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Regardless of your crazy-bitch tirade: Does it matter to your lungs what excuse you have for smoking? Regardless of what a woman's reasons for dressing like a slut are, if she's putting her body into a known biological trigger for copulation when she doesn't want to copulate she's just being ignorant and stupid. We might have dreams and ideals of what reality should b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I said nothing about intelligence, or individual variation. Yes, individual people can be right-wing and smart and rational and scientific. However, you are an exception, and on average, the overall population will generally correlate far-right-wing ideology with Fox News-style anti-intellectualism, and (tepid) progressivism with more "sciencey-sounding" NPR-style media.
Re: (Score:3)
how is sharia based on science and reason? Apostasy and Heresy are punishable by death under sharia, where they should be rewarded and encouraged under a scientific and reasonable system of law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)