Natur citat

6702 quotes have been tagged as nature: Albert Einstein: ‘A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. H... Play Nature Cat games. Produced by Funded by Major funding for Nature Cat is provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Van Eekeren Family, founders of Land O’Frost. „Nature never “fails.” Nature complies with its own laws. Nature is the law. When Man lacks understanding of Nature’s laws and a Man-contrived structure buckles unexpectedly, it does not fail. It only demonstrates that Man did not understand Nature’s laws and behaviors. Nothing failed. Man’s knowledge or estimating was inadequate.“ Produced by Funded by Major funding for Nature Cat is provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Van Eekeren Family, founders of Land O’Frost. Created by Adam Rudman, David Rudman, Todd Hannert. With Taran Killam, Kate McKinnon, Kate Micucci, Bobby Moynihan. An adventurous house cat goes on crazy trips and adventures with his friends to learn all about animals and nature. Welcome to the Nature Cat Wiki An online database and community about PBS Kids's Nature Cat! Welcome to Nature Cat! Sign up for a free account and join our community!, Meet the Characters! Get introduced to Nature Cat, Hal, Daisy, and Squeeks., Get to know the Episodes! Know somethings about the episodes. Her nature demands she's dominated, even if she tries to fight it. She'll listen to an amount of force – positive force, not negative force. But leave the run wide open with no boundaries and she won't listen to you at all. All she'll listen to is the call of freedom, even if it leads her straight into a trap. Stop thinking like a human. Descoperă colecția noastră de citate despre natură care te vor face să apreciezi și să înțelegi cea mai de preț comoară pe care am primit-o gratuit cu toții în momentul nașterii noastre.. 1.Natura nu a fost făcută pentru a fi schimbată. Jerome Klapka Jerome. 2.Sunt arbore, mă plec în faţa vântului care aduce ploaia. Nature Cat x Nature Dog stamp. ToonFanJoey. 4 Comments. 14 Favourites. Nature Cat - Nature Cat. SkunkyToonTastic. 7 Comments. 33 Favourites. Nature Cat - Daisy The Bunny. SkunkyToonTastic. 1 Comments. 25 Favourites. Nature Cat poses. kaylor2013. 1 Comments. 13 Favourites. Join the world's largest art community and get personalized art ...

Most common essay writing mistakes (tips from a course instructor)

2020.09.20 02:04 Ivy_87 Most common essay writing mistakes (tips from a course instructor)

I've been teaching for over ten years and have a sense of what university students most typically struggle with when it comes to essay writing. I've talked with other instructors and put together a quick list of common errors - if you're heading into your first midterms, watch out for these!

  1. Not writing an outline first
The hardest part of writing is starting to write. It's understandable, then, that a lot of students don't spend enough time planning and writing an outline. You want to get it over with, so you write the introduction first and work the rest out as you go along. However, if you don't have a clear outline, you might find that by the time you get to the end of your essay, the thesis you stated in the introduction has changed. It's always worth doing a lot of your critical thinking before you even begin to write.
  1. Writing a lengthy introduction with very general and uninformative claims
Many students have the habit of starting their essays by pointing out that their topic has interested historians / philosophers / scientists for hundreds of years or since the beginning of time. Don't do this. It doesn't tell your reader anything important and it makes a bad first impression on your grader. (Sentences like this are a bit of a pet peeve for most professors.) The introduction of a term essay is very different from the introduction of, say, a newspaper article. You need to get right to the point and avoid using too much of a chatty tone. Concisely explain what your topic is and give your thesis statement.
  1. Choosing a thesis that is too wide or ambitious
"In this essay, I will argue that nurture is more important than nature.""In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism about ethics is right."
Each of these thesis statements takes on a huge debate. Even if, instead of 2,000 words, you had 10,000, you would not be able to even scrape the surface of these issues. Make sure that the scope of your thesis statement is sufficiently small. This will help you to write a more focused essay, which is what your professors are looking for. For example, you might choose to focus on one particular author's views on utilitarianism and argue that there is a problem with one of his arguments. It's good to be bold, but don't try to take on questions that are so wide in scope that you are forced to give them a superficial answer.
  1. Not taking a position in your thesis statement
"In this essay, I will compare different theories of free will - specifically, compatibilism, which says that free will is compatible with causality and libertarianism, which denies this.""In this essay, I will describe Sigmund Freud's theory of dreaming, focusing on his claims about the purpose of dreaming."
Your thesis statement should work a bit like a conclusion of an argument - it should follow from your premises. If your thesis statement claims that you will simply 'compare', 'describe', or 'observe' something, this is an indication that you might not be taking enough of a position in your essay. The thesis statements above are not arguing for a position: they are not trying to persuade the reader. (Of course there are exceptions to this rule: some questions specifically ask only for comparisons or descriptions - but most questions do not.) Comparing, observing, or describing are all useful things to do when you are arguing for your thesis, but they shouldn't be all that you do in your essay.
  1. Sitting on the fence
Sitting on the fence in your essay often goes hand in hand with not taking a position in your thesis statement. It's tempting to feel like you just don't know enough about the main topic of your essay to settle the central debates. After all, these debates have typically been going on between experts for many years. Your instructor knows that and isn't trying to catch you out for taking the wrong position on something. What's important is your reasoning and evidence. You are not expected to forever resolve long-standing disputes in just a few short pages. You are expected to take a clear stance based on your evaluation of the argument(s) presented.
  1. Mentioning as many arguments as possible
This is one of the most common mistakes that students make in essay writing. Let's say that you have a word limit of 1500 words. For an essay like this to be focused and thorough, you should only be exploring one or two arguments at most. Many students think that including four or five arguments in their essays will make for a stronger case (five reasons to agree with the thesis are better one, right?). In actual fact, this almost always leads to a bad essay. Firstly, it's impossible to do justice to so many different ideas using a small number of words. Your treatment of each argument will have to be superficial to stay within the word limit. Secondly, including five different arguments does not allow you to show your good judgement in differentiating the stronger ones from the weaker ones. Picking the strongest two arguments shows your grader that you can discriminate. Thirdly, including many different arguments usually leads to the clarity of the essay suffering. Ideas in these kinds of essays tend to get run together and the reader struggles to keep track of the main line of thought.
  1. Quoting too much (or using very long quotations)
Many students rely too heavily on quotations. You might think that quoting extensively will show that you have worked really hard on understanding the primary text but in fact this has the opposite effect. Your instructor wants to see that you have understood the material and can explain the ideas independently, in your own words. Be careful not to let quotations do the job of explaining for you. Direct quotation is best used when it is important to establish a writer's exact choice of words. For example, the choice of words may be unclear and you may want to explain why this is and to justify your interpretation of them. A writer might introduce a new term for something and, by using quotation, you can make it clear that this is their term (and not yours). Finally, quotations are useful if you want to provide evidence for a particular claim in your argument (for instance, when you quote an expert).
  1. Not including any references
While some students fill their essays with quotations, others forget to include any at all. Make sure to include a few quotations in your essay to support your claims, particularly if you are analysing another writer's work. Additionally, when you give your exposition, you should be paraphrasing some of the ideas that you are explaining (that is, you should be putting the ideas into your own words). And when you paraphrase something from a primary text, you can reference it: cite the source and page number after your paraphrase just as you would with a quote. While page numbers are optional in paraphrase citations, they do show your reader that you understand exactly where the claim is coming from and that your engagement with the original material has been really thorough.
  1. Stating rather than showing
When you are arguing that another position is wrong, it is really important to show why this is. Claiming that their overall conclusion is false or implausible is not enough here. You need to explain to your reader exactly why the other position is a bad one. To do this, you cannot presuppose any agreement with your position: assume a neutral reader who needs persuading on the matter.
  1. Appealing to the dictionary definition of a concept
Getting started with an analytical essay can be difficult. The first step that many students take is to reach for the dictionary definition of their topic. Here the dictionary definition is typically not used to make a specific point about language but is rather used as a way to introduce discussion. Not only is this not helpful to the substance of the essay, but it usually serves as a red flag to the grader that the writer was running out of time or ideas. Because this is such a common (and unhelpful) student writing technique, it has come to annoy professors. Resist the temptation to start your essay like this!
  1. Using non-academic language
This guide is not written in academic language. There are many contexts where it's perfectly fine to use informal, concise, or even slang language. However, for academic essays, you have to adopt a different style of writing. In academic writing you should avoid using any colloquial vocabulary. For example, don't use phrases like "above board", "pretty decent", and "not great". Don't use contractions like "don't", "can't", and "won't" - write out the full words. Academic writing should have a formal tone and should be as clear and precise as possible.
Non-academic writing style: "In this essay I will talk about how the canon isn't wide enough. I feel like these days so much good abstract art is made and ignored by people who study art history."Academic writing style: "In this essay I will argue that the canon of art history is not sufficiently inclusive. Specifically, I will suggest that it ought to include more contemporary, abstract art."
  1. Using strawman arguments
The function of a scarecrow is to scare birds away from crops by appearing to be a person. On closer examination, it just looks like sticks and straw. A strawman argument is a reconstruction of an argument that has the appearance of being like the original, but, on closer examination, is in fact much weaker. Strawman arguments are of course easier to criticize. Be careful that you aren't unfairly attributing a weakened position to someone in this way. If your take on the writer whose work you have been asked to analyze is that they are completely incompetent, re-examine your analysis. The principle of charity recommends that we present the strongest possible version of any opposing arguments. This will make your own arguments stronger. Showing that you can deal with a weak objection doesn't do much for your case. Showing that you can deal with the strongest possible objection to your argument is very persuasive.
  1. Putting new things in your conclusion
Conclusions should bring together the results of your essay. In a sense, they are a kind of mirror image of introductions. Do not use your conclusion to add further reasons to agree with your main thesis - this work should have already been done by this point in the essay. Explain to the reader what you were able to show in your essay. How did you prove your thesis? What, very briefly, was the reasoning you used? You might want to include a sentence or two explaining the implications of what you have shown for some wider context in society or for the future of research in your area. There's no need to be too bold here - you're not expected to revolutionize anything. Think of the kind of thing you might say if you were explaining to someone why your conclusion is interesting in a more general way.
  1. Trying to get around the word limit with font size or margin adjustments
Let's say you've been working all day on your essay and you've ended up 500 words over your word limit. If you're feeling really invested in what you've written - or just too lazy to edit it down - you might be tempted to try to adjust some visuals on your essay to make it look shorter. If 2,000 words is 8 pages double-spaced, then how about narrowing the margins and changing the font size to 11? The problem with this is that, though the layout might not look all that different to you after these changes, it will look strikingly different to the 40 other essays your professor has just graded. Most course instructors will allow you to go 5 or 10% over the word limit, but disguising an extra 500 words is not going to work! Avoid any last-minute panic by making sure that you have a strict word budget in your essay plan.
  1. Underestimating the importance of editing your final draft
It's easy to miss this step if you are working to a deadline but it is one of the most impactful stages of the writing process. The overall impression that your essay makes is very influential on a grader. Lots of typos, grammatical errors, and unclear sentences will exhaust your grader and can potentially undermine your hard work. One great way to check for clarity is to ask a peer who is not in your class to read through your essay: if they can understand it all without guidance, that's a good sign. If they can't, ask them to highlight which sentences are unclear. Try to get some distance from your work before reading through it yourself. Leave your draft alone for a day or two and then edit it with fresh eyes. If you're running short on time, one way to quickly create distance from your work is to read it aloud and imagine that you have an audience. Do your explanations sound clear? Are any of your sentences too long? Does your essay fulfill the promise of the introduction?
Review
  1. Not writing an outline first
  2. Writing a bad introduction
  3. Thesis too wide or ambitious
  4. Not taking a position (thesis)
  5. Sitting on the fence
  6. Mentioning too many arguments
  7. Quoting too much
  8. Not including any references
  9. Stating rather than showing
  10. Dictionary definitions
  11. Using non-academic language
  12. Using strawman arguments
  13. Putting new things in your conclusion
  14. Trying to get around the word limit
  15. Not editing

[Reposed since it was deleted earlier and a few folks have asked for it. I had originally published it on the blog of my tutoring business, so it still had some links to other posts I've written - apologies for that, mods! Here it is with all links removed!]
submitted by Ivy_87 to college [link] [comments]


2020.09.19 20:45 Ivy_87 Most common essay writing mistakes (tips from a course instructor)

I've been teaching for over ten years and have a sense of what university students most typically struggle with when it comes to essay writing. I've talked with other instructors and put together a quick list of common errors - if you're heading into your first midterms, watch out for these!

1. Not writing an outline first

The hardest part of writing is starting to write. It's understandable, then, that a lot of students don't spend enough time planning and writing an outline. You want to get it over with, so you write the introduction first and work the rest out as you go along. However, if you don't have a clear outline, you might find that by the time you get to the end of your essay, the thesis you stated in the introduction has changed. It's always worth doing a lot of your critical thinking before you even begin to write. For tips on how to do this, have a look at How Do I Start My Essay? Top Ten Tips for Essay Writing.

2. Writing a lengthy introduction with very general and uninformative claims

Many students have the habit of starting their essays by pointing out that their topic has interested historians / philosophers / scientists for hundreds of years or since the beginning of time. Don't do this. It doesn't tell your reader anything important and it makes a bad first impression on your grader. (Sentences like this are a bit of a pet peeve for most professors.) The introduction of a term essay is very different from the introduction of, say, a newspaper article. You need to get right to the point and avoid using too much of a chatty tone. Concisely explain what your topic is and give your thesis statement. For more detailed guidance on introductions, have a look at How to Write an Introduction for an Essay.

3. Choosing a thesis that is too wide or ambitious

"In this essay, I will argue that nurture is more important than nature." "In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism about ethics is right."
Each of these thesis statements takes on a huge debate. Even if, instead of 2,000 words, you had 10,000, you would not be able to even scrape the surface of these issues. Make sure that the scope of your thesis statement is sufficiently small. This will help you to write a more focused essay, which is what your professors are looking for. For example, you might choose to focus on one particular author's views on utilitarianism and argue that there is a problem with one of his arguments. It's good to be bold, but don't try to take on questions that are so wide in scope that you are forced to give them a superficial answer.

4. Not taking a position in your thesis statement

"In this essay, I will compare different theories of free will - specifically, compatibilism, which says that free will is compatible with causality and libertarianism, which denies this." "In this essay, I will describe Sigmund Freud's theory of dreaming, focusing on his claims about the purpose of dreaming."
Your thesis statement should work a bit like a conclusion of an argument - it should follow from your premises. If your thesis statement claims that you will simply 'compare', 'describe', or 'observe' something, this is an indication that you might not be taking enough of a position in your essay. The thesis statements above are not arguing for a position: they are not trying to persuade the reader. (Of course there are exceptions to this rule: some questions specifically ask only for comparisons or descriptions - but most questions do not.) Comparing, observing, or describing are all useful things to do when you are arguing for your thesis, but they shouldn't be all that you do in your essay.

5. Sitting on the fence

Sitting on the fence in your essay often goes hand in hand with not taking a position in your thesis statement. It's tempting to feel like you just don't know enough about the main topic of your essay to settle the central debates. After all, these debates have typically been going on between experts for many years. Your instructor knows that and isn't trying to catch you out for taking the wrong position on something. What's important is your reasoning and evidence. You are not expected to forever resolve long-standing disputes in just a few short pages. You are expected to take a clear stance based on your evaluation of the argument(s) presented.

6. Mentioning as many arguments as possible

This is one of the most common mistakes that students make in essay writing. Let's say that you have a word limit of 1500 words. For an essay like this to be focused and thorough, you should only be exploring one or two arguments at most. Many students think that including four or five arguments in their essays will make for a stronger case (five reasons to agree with the thesis are better one, right?). In actual fact, this almost always leads to a bad essay. Firstly, it's impossible to do justice to so many different ideas using a small number of words. Your treatment of each argument will have to be superficial to stay within the word limit. Secondly, including five different arguments does not allow you to show your good judgement in differentiating the stronger ones from the weaker ones. Picking the strongest two arguments shows your grader that you can discriminate. Thirdly, including many different arguments usually leads to the clarity of the essay suffering. Ideas in these kinds of essays tend to get run together and the reader struggles to keep track of the main line of thought.

7. Quoting too much (or using very long quotations)

Many students rely too heavily on quotations. You might think that quoting extensively will show that you have worked really hard on understanding the primary text but in fact this has the opposite effect. Your instructor wants to see that you have understood the material and can explain the ideas independently, in your own words. Be careful not to let quotations do the job of explaining for you. Direct quotation is best used when it is important to establish a writer's exact choice of words. For example, the choice of words may be unclear and you may want to explain why this is and to justify your interpretation of them. A writer might introduce a new term for something and, by using quotation, you can make it clear that this is their term (and not yours). Finally, quotations are useful if you want to provide evidence for a particular claim in your argument (for instance, when you quote an expert).

8. Not including any references

While some students fill their essays with quotations, others forget to include any at all. Make sure to include a few quotations in your essay to support your claims, particularly if you are analysing another writer's work. Additionally, when you give your exposition, you should be paraphrasing some of the ideas that you are explaining (that is, you should be putting the ideas into your own words). And when you paraphrase something from a primary text, you can reference it: cite the source and page number after your paraphrase just as you would with a quote. While page numbers are optional in paraphrase citations, they do show your reader that you understand exactly where the claim is coming from and that your engagement with the original material has been really thorough.

9. Stating rather than showing

When you are arguing that another position is wrong, it is really important to show why this is. Claiming that their overall conclusion is false or implausible is not enough here. You need to explain to your reader exactly why the other position is a bad one. To do this, you cannot presuppose any agreement with your position: assume a neutral reader who needs persuading on the matter.

10. Appealing to the dictionary definition of a concept

Getting started with an analytical essay can be difficult. The first step that many students take is to reach for the dictionary definition of their topic. Here the dictionary definition is typically not used to make a specific point about language but is rather used as a way to introduce discussion. Not only is this not helpful to the substance of the essay, but it usually serves as a red flag to the grader that the writer was running out of time or ideas. Because this is such a common (and unhelpful) student writing technique, it has come to annoy professors. Resist the temptation to start your essay like this!

11. Using non-academic language

This guide is not written in academic language. There are many contexts where it's perfectly fine to use informal, concise, or even slang language. However, for academic essays, you have to adopt a different style of writing. In academic writing you should avoid using any colloquial vocabulary. For example, don't use phrases like "above board", "pretty decent", and "not great". Don't use contractions like "don't", "can't", and "won't" - write out the full words. Academic writing should have a formal tone and should be as clear and precise as possible.
Non-academic writing style: "In this essay I will talk about how the canon isn't wide enough. I feel like these days so much good abstract art is made and ignored by people who study art history." Academic writing style: "In this essay I will argue that the canon of art history is not sufficiently inclusive. Specifically, I will suggest that it ought to include more contemporary, abstract art."

12. Using strawman arguments

The function of a scarecrow is to scare birds away from crops by appearing to be a person. On closer examination, it just looks like sticks and straw. A strawman argument is a reconstruction of an argument that has the appearance of being like the original, but, on closer examination, is in fact much weaker. Strawman arguments are of course easier to criticize. Be careful that you aren't unfairly attributing a weakened position to someone in this way. If your take on the writer whose work you have been asked to analyze is that they are completely incompetent, re-examine your analysis. The principle of charity recommends that we present the strongest possible version of any opposing arguments. This will make your own arguments stronger. Showing that you can deal with a weak objection doesn't do much for your case. Showing that you can deal with the strongest possible objection to your argument is very persuasive.

13. Putting new things in your conclusion

Conclusions should bring together the results of your essay. In a sense, they are a kind of mirror image of introductions. Do not use your conclusion to add further reasons to agree with your main thesis - this work should have already been done by this point in the essay. Explain to the reader what you were able to show in your essay. How did you prove your thesis? What, very briefly, was the reasoning you used? You might want to include a sentence or two explaining the implications of what you have shown for some wider context in society or for the future of research in your area. There's no need to be too bold here - you're not expected to revolutionize anything. Think of the kind of thing you might say if you were explaining to someone why your conclusion is interesting in a more general way.

14. Trying to get around the word limit with font size or margin adjustments

Let's say you've been working all day on your essay and you've ended up 500 words over your word limit. If you're feeling really invested in what you've written - or just too lazy to edit it down - you might be tempted to try to adjust some visuals on your essay to make it look shorter. If 2,000 words is 8 pages double-spaced, then how about narrowing the margins and changing the font size to 11? The problem with this is that, though the layout might not look all that different to you after these changes, it will look strikingly different to the 40 other essays your professor has just graded. Most course instructors will allow you to go 5 or 10% over the word limit, but disguising an extra 500 words is not going to work! Avoid any last-minute panic by making sure that you have a strict word budget in your essay plan (see How Do I Start My Essay? Top Ten Tips for Essay Writing for tips on how to do this).

15. Underestimating the importance of editing your final draft

It's easy to miss this step if you are working to a deadline but it is one of the most impactful stages of the writing process. The overall impression that your essay makes is very influential on a grader. Lots of typos, grammatical errors, and unclear sentences will exhaust your grader and can potentially undermine your hard work. One great way to check for clarity is to ask a peer who is not in your class to read through your essay: if they can understand it all without guidance, that's a good sign. If they can't, ask them to highlight which sentences are unclear. Try to get some distance from your work before reading through it yourself. Leave your draft alone for a day or two and then edit it with fresh eyes. If you're running short on time, one way to quickly create distance from your work is to read it aloud and imagine that you have an audience. Do your explanations sound clear? Are any of your sentences too long? Does your essay fulfill the promise of the introduction?

Review

  1. Not writing an outline first
  2. Writing a bad introduction
  3. Thesis too wide or ambitious
  4. Not taking a position (thesis)
  5. Sitting on the fence
  6. Mentioning too many arguments
  7. Quoting too much
  8. Not including any references
  9. Stating rather than showing
  10. Dictionary definitions
  11. Using non-academic language
  12. Using strawman arguments
  13. Putting new things in your conclusion
  14. Trying to get around the word limit
  15. Not editing
submitted by Ivy_87 to GetStudying [link] [comments]


2020.09.19 20:26 cleomedes FAQ link, introduction, beginner's Q&A, and general discussion #16

Welcome to the Stoicism subreddit, a forum for discussion of Stoicism, the school of philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium in the 3rd century BC. Please use the comments of this post for beginner's questions and general discussion.

    Please read our FAQ (partial mirror)

Familiarity with a good general overview of Stoicism is also highly recommended. The FAQ has a section with resources for newcomers. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good general entry on Stoicism. For a less technical, highly abbreviated and simplified introduction, Donald Robertson's blog posts A Simplified Modern Approach to Stoicism and An Introduction to Stoic Practice: The Three Disciplines of Stoicism can provide a few of the basics. For more technical overviews, the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy has a good entry on Stoicism, and wikipedia has one as well.
In addition to the FAQ, there is a page of links to examples of previous threads and other resources related to frequently discussed topics for which there is no FAQ entry, and the subreddit wiki has additional resources.
Some of the subreddit rules may be surprising, so please review them as well. Stoic memes, inspirational posters, and similar posts should now be directed to StoicMemes .
In addition to the enforced rules regarding quotes and citations, we strongly encourage (but do not require) posters to include a link to the relevant part of an online translation (even if it is not the translation quoted). Translations of Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus, Musonius Rufus, Diogenes Laertius's Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, Arius Didymus's Epitome of Stoic Ethics, and Cicero's On Ends, Tusculan Disputations, On Duties, Stoic Paradoxes, and On the Nature of the Gods are all available.
Finally, reddiquette applies to the subreddit.
submitted by cleomedes to Stoicism [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 22:30 Arophax1 Why are you religious and why is it important to you?

I was told you guys would like this kind of question so I figured I'd give it a shot.
This got taken down. Before on change my view. If it gets taken out again I'll remove the more sensitive questions since this is important to me.
If a reddit moderator is reading this no i am not pushing athiesm. That is not my goal. I am not trying to disprove god. I genuinely want to learn from the religious. Learn about their beleifs and why they beleive it. I want to understand is all because I have become toxic towards religious people irl which is making me a bad person. I want to be a good human being and an accepting one. That requires understanding. The queer questions I am not debating. If someone explains why they don't like trans people (I am trans and gay so you know) I am not going to debate them or escalate things. I simply will ask why, and once explained move on.
I may disagree but I'm not trying to change minds I'm trying to understand them. If this does not fit your reddit I understand and okay but I just want to try and ask with those added questions since they are important to me. I will remove them if they are too much though.
Up front, some of these questions get deep and hard to answer. Comments will probably have pro lifers, anti lgbtq, and anti feminists.
I do not agree with those opiolnions but I am asking for them. I want to understand them. Not all of the questions are doom and gloom! Some are quite peaceful, just wanted to warn if your're sensitive to those viewpoints don't view the comments and don't argue with them over their opinions. I'm not going to personally. I asked their opinion, I can't then argue about it I can only ask why. I will argue over false information but that's it. If you say gay people are bad because they kiss the same sex I won't agree with it, but you formed your opinion on a fact so I can't argue against it.
This post may not be bigotry but the comments may be so I understand if my post just gets deleted. I am NOT trying to instigate. I just want the opinions. I don't want to argue over anything but facts not opinions. This is also mainly pertaining to religion. I want to know how religion backs up their claims. Once again to understand. I do argue with these types of people but not today, today I want to understand.
This is a discussion mainly pertaining to religion and the religious/spiritual. Please, no athiests giving their opinion on what religious think. If you used to be religious and have a reason why you used to beleive a certain point then that's fine but I don't want any "it's because christians blank" stuff. You aren't them so you can't vouch for them.
Some of the questions don't require religious affiliation so athiests can respond to those but if it's specific to religion, please don't put your opinion. I'm asking for theirs specifically.
Alright for starters I'm athiestic, born in the Bible belt and raised in church.
I am not currently going to change my athiestic views, I found happiness in it. Does that mean I'll never change my views? No. But it is a pretty big viewpoint that would take me more than one discussion. Right now I want to change my opinions on religion. I am currently dismissive. Others should beleive what they want but often, and this is a bad trait of mine, if you say you believe in gods or spirits or an afterlife I roll my eyes and think "stupid but okay" which is wrong.
I cannot truly be neutral on religion if I view it negatively and get upset when asked to join in a prayer or would groan if asked to go to church with someone on a special occasion. I should be open to it and not force myself not to enjoy something simply because I don't beleive in it.
I will make my world views clear. I am athiestic and a TST Satanist. For those who do not know TST satanism is a denomination that mainly surrounds separation of church and state and pushing forth that all religions and lack of religions should be viewed equally.
This post is to help with me better practicing one of our tenets which is not to force others to be athiestic or TST Satanist and instead accept all view points so long as there is no harm. Despite this I will be asking for viewpoints surround harm to. I won't agree with you but understanding is how we change minds so regardless of that's right now, I will listen.
I personally do not beleive any religious text should be in law, nor is a reliable foundation for law. It's fine if you use it to dictate your own life (once again given the text isn't telling you to harm yourself majorly in order to please a deity, fasting is fine to me but self harm like cutting or other things of the sort i do not agree with) but when you use it to dictate others is when I no longer agree with you
I AM NOT TRYING TO PUSH THIS OPINION. I want to make.it absolutely clear this point is not to convert you to athiesm. It is not push athiest good Christian bad. It is to understand differing viewpoints. That is all. I am biased to think religion is bad. I want to change that.
I may ask questions about lgbtq and women's rights. That's not because I think all christians are anti queer etc. They are not but those who are I want to understand why they have that opinion. The better I understand people the better I can be and understanding a viewpoint even if it's against my own helps me better understand people who think that way.
If you comment why you are anti lgbtq I'm not gonna try and change your mind. I'll ask why and that will be the end of it because for now that is all I want to know. I don't really want other people to respond to responses under this comment. This is not a debate. If someone gives an opinion and explains why move on, even if you disagree. I am meant to disagree with some of these points that's the point, I can disagree so long as I understand. If you bring up false factual information I will inform you of that but I won't scream "you're wrong!" That's not the goal here.
If you ask me something to clarify I will and if you ask for sources I will give them. Don't debate me. My opinion is my own. Ask why but once I explain move on. You can criticize sources same as I can yours and you do not need a source to lay your opinion. Just an explanation.
There are a lot of questions but they all pertain to the same general topic. It just specifies the question a bit more.
Here are a range of questions I have along with some opinions. If a questions strikes you please answer it but let me know the question number so I know what you are referencing. It will make things much smoother. Not all questions need to be answered by everyone. You can if you want but I'm expecting you respond to what's important to you. Now let's beging.
  1. Why does religion bring you comfort?
    Why does it bring you comfort, and if you beleive athiesm is sad, why is that? Sure I joke about being a piece of sentient meat flying on a speck of dirt but that doesn't make me feel meaningless. Things will end and I will never feel this again. Is that scary? Sure, all unknowns are scary, but it's also cool. What if you never became a sentient creature? Nothing much would be lost, you wouldn't know, but being here now is really cool.
  2. Why are humans more special than animals or plants? Why are we gods special little creatures.
I don't ... Let me phrase this right. I'm not saying the religious are pretentious or self rightous (understand the main religion I understand is christianity, you may have a religion where the point is you aren't devine or special, I simply may not have learned about it and if you do please inform me below. I love to learn!) But I personally don't understand why being made by a deity would bring me comfort. What's the purpose in that?
I suppose it's neat but I don't see how it brings life purpose. I am not above anything. I eat meat such as cows, but that's not because I feel I'm above them or think they are worth less than me. They satiate my hunger and keep me alive, I respect every animal I eat for providing me with life and I understand the importance of respecting them for this reason. If I was eaten tomorrow by a black bear I'd be fine with it and wouldn't want it hunted down. I am not above or below. We are one. If I take from nature to nurture myself as we all do, I must give back to nature in my death. I wish to rot out in the open, I wish for cows to feast upon grass that contains my nutrients. It only seems fair.
So the sort of idea that a god made us specifically as the top, as his special creations is peculiar to me. Why am I more special than that bear? A lot of people answer with sentience but all animals are sentient. They take actions to survive. Monkeys do things specifically for pleasure that have nothing to do with survival. If you live and breathe you're sentient. Even a worm knows it's alive.
  1. Is hell moral? What do you think hell is like? Who deserves hell? Does a hell even exist to you?
Another question I've always wondered is if your religion has a hell do you think it's moral? I know to most the god makes morality so if he sees it as moral than it is but as I see you also have free will as well. I want your honest opinion on hell. Do you think eternal punishment is fair for anyone? Do beleive in hell but only beleive it's preserved for the worst of the worst? If so who are the worst of the worst and where do those in the middle go? Do they still go heaven or are they stick in between?
Do you beleive a soul in hell can be redeemed? As in hell is like a prison you are punished and then freed, or do you think it's simply game over for the sinner? Do you think it's fair for someone to be eternally punished for mistakes they made within a 100 year time period?
  1. What are your views on heaven? Does/can it exist? Are you truly happy or forced to be? Who gets into heaven?
If you beleive in a heaven how do you think it works? Are you forced into euphoria? If someone you loved was in hell do you think you could truly be happy in heaven? Do you think happiness can exist without misery to contrast and vise versa?
For those who beleive not believing is reason for hell do you think those who never got the chance to learn are included? If so why? If not, why not? If I am just by happenstance someone who doesn't beleive but lives by his rules. Of course do minor sins in my life but as a whole try my best do I still go to heaven or am I to go to hell?
  1. Is your god all loving or is he to be feared? Is he both? If so how?
Is god loving or hateful? It took the sacrifice of jesus for God to offer people redemption. Why couldn't he simply offer it based on character and if a person tried to be good in life or not? Why do you beleive it required sacrifice?
Am I to fear him or love him? If he is indeed all loving why would there be a need to fear? Wouldn't he be understanding and if we failed our earth test teach us in heaven ?
  1. Is your religious text law? Why or why not?
For those who beleive that the bible or any holy book is law why? Some of this is specifically aimed at christianity but if this applies to your religion as well please comment your response. Why should we follow the laws of your text? Which laws do we follow? Is the old testament valid or invalid. If it is valid then is stoning people okay? If not how do you know?
Why are you personally religious? I don't mean "I was raised in church" but rather did you ever ask yourself why you beleive and why you continue to beleive. I don't not want to convert to athiesm I just want to know why YOU chose to beleive something.
  1. Do you truly think God isn't flawed at all? Is he omnipotent and all powerful? If so why doesn't he help those who need him?
If god is omnipotent he knows if you are going to heaven or hell and exactly how you'll respond to every scenerio. In that case what is the point of earth as a trial? I may misunderstand what you mean by omnipotent to please inform me but this has always confused me.
If he is all powerful why does he refuse to help some but help others? Some people live entirely miserable lives of no fault of their own, some of these people are even religious, but he doesn't seem to help them. I see the bible perceived as fact a lot (you may be christian and not beleive this, and that's valid and I would like to know why) but if it is factual and he did split open oceans and cause plauges could he not make sure that homeless man isn't picking the rotten parts off dumpster sandwiches to survive?
I know trials are a thing but but why are these trials so vastly different? Some people don't get into the college they wanted while others are diagnosed with cancer at 5. Those are not equally easy to overcome or even close to as much of a strain on faith as the other and seems kind of unfair. If you give two people a test, one an sat, another a 5th grade biology test and the sat tester fails it kinda seems set up and rigged against them?
I am once again trying to understand. I don't understand, there can be a reason that you have that I did not know and I would like to know so I can understand why people beleive despite horrible tragedies.
  1. What's the buzz about faith? Why is it necessary?
If faith is necessary to your beleifs why? Why would having proof of a god eliminate free will. People could still choose to follow or not follow him. It would give people more free will I think. I just personally find it unfair to require someone to beleive in your existence with no solid proof of said existence.
If you're response to that question is "science is faith based too" why do you beleive that?
9.Should children be brought up into your personal religion? (My personal opinion is no but please let me know if you beleive otherwise and why you think so.)
This one is touchy though I guess this all is but do you think it's morally right to push an impressionable (I use impressionable not to try and make religious who do this sound evil, I don't think they are but was the best word I could use to describe how children beleive just about anything coming from and authority such as parent therefore find it difficult to fo their own opinions) child into any beleifs, athiestic, theist, or religious? My personal stance is no. People should be given an array of religious texts and choose for themselves which brings them most comfort, I wouldn't even want my child to become an atheist because papa is, I would want them to make that choice on their own. But if you think otherwise then why?
  1. Why do you beleive in reincarnation, ghosts, and or souls?
Reincarnation and ghost people, why do you beleive in that? How do you imagine it works? If you are reborn and don't remember the past life why does it matter. How is that different than simply dying/ being born? If not, why?
I'm assuming you beleive in souls if you beleive in ghosts. What is the soul and why do you beleive in it? Why aren't ghosts present everywhere? Odds are somebody at some point has been burried beneath where you are so why aren't we all haunted? (This is a western understanding of the ghost, if you have a different beleif once again share. I really want to learn!) Could there be a happy ghost or do they all have to be miserable?
  1. Why are you pro life? How does your religion tie into it if you are?
Another touchy one, so please no violent arguments. I'm pro choice, that isn't going to change, but you may be able to change my understanding and not assume being pro life means being unsympathetic for having a singular opinion. People are sums of their parts. One part doesn't make them bad even if I strongly disagree. The world isn't black and white. Why do you think abortion is wrong? If a baby is too much for the mother's body and she is dying does the child or mom's life come first? For rape victims why do you think they should follow through with birth? Child rape victims too, I just want to understand.
12.Do you agree with sex ed? Do you think it's a famly matter? Do you think people should practice abstinence? Why? Should people wait til marriage? Is causual sex wrong to you?
Do you think sex ed is good? Why or why not? If you think it's inappropriate then why? If you think it's a family matter then why? Why shouldn't kids learn of their body and about sex from people who have studied sex organs and sex their whole life. Why no condoms or birth control if your're against it? It's lowers std spread and teen pregnancy, and birth control also helps people who have bad periods or crazy hormone levels so if you are, why are you against it?
If you beleive in a abstinence why? I beleive people should choose if they want sex before or after marriage absolutely! But why it wrong for others to want to explore that beforehand. Some people such as myself don't ever wish to get married so why would it be wrong? if you are waiting on marriage why? That's not a bad thing at all I think it's wonderful for people to know what they want for themselves but what's special about waiting for marriage to you?
13.Are you anti lgbtq? If so why? If not , why not? Do you think the bible backs your beleifs? How so? Would you still vote for queer rights even if you personally don't agree. Why or why not?
Once again touchy. No fighting In comments. I want to try and understand please and no discussion goes anywhere by just spewing hate. If you think the bible or any religious text is anti lgbtq why? Do you think gay people are immoral? Why do YOU beleive being gay is wrong, not just the religious text, but do you think being gay causes harm or is a bad thing? If you don't beleive it causes harm but still see it as wrong why do you think God sees it as wrong?
Do you think queer people should be allowed to be queer even if you disagree? Why or why not?
Should trans people be allowed to transition even if you disagree? Why or why not? How do you define gender? If based on gentalia how do you define hermaphrodites? Why do you think God thinks transitioning is wrong?
Do you view us as evil? I know that's far out there but some do see us as really bad and almost demo like. If that's you please explain your beleif and why you beleive it. Do you think I'm a bad person for being queer or misguided? Do you think gay people deserve hell?
  1. Is man above woman or equal? Are men to be the leaders and women servants? Why?
This confused me in church a lot as well. The whole idea that every man was to lead his wife despite some women clearly being smarte stronger than some men. Do you beleive this is true? Should men have the final say, if so why?
I'd that how it was meant to be taken? If so how was it mean to be taken. What does man leads the house mean to you?
  1. What do you think about bible controdictory/mistranslation.
Is mistranslation okay? There are many rewrites of the Bible that contradict eachother, is the text still valid to you? Is it valid but only the original translation? If you use one of the modern translations why do you trust It? If you use a specific modern translation why that specific one?
This isn't to disprove your beleifs just understand the bible more, and why people use the Bible more. I'm not trying to do an "unreliable text" jab. I just want to hear your ideas on which bible is the one people should listen to and why, if you follow the bible at all.
  1. Do you think your religious text is constantly misunderstood and used wrong. If so why?
I've met christians who are pro choice, pro lgbtq, and pro feminism who claim the bible supports their views and that people use the text wrong. How so? Why are their interpretations incorrect? How did you conclude that the bible supports your opinion and not a different one? Do you even beleive in the bible or do you skip it and simple beleive in the Bible's version of god?
  1. Do you beleive in voodoo/ witchcraft. If so why and why is it important to you? Also if it works then why not use it as often?
I've been introduced to voodoo and witch type people and cannot grasp the beleif. I don't understand how certain rocks (this is a simplictic explanation, there's more to it than that but still usually some natural elements are often used because of special "powers") and things cause things to happen. Why do you beleive it and is it more than just positions and revenge. (I'm also not talking about nature witchcraft, you may share that too below but this is aimed more towards magic kind of witchcraft.
  1. Is your religion a cult..why or why not?
To explain I see a lot of religions as cults.it's why I often view them on a bad light so I need to understand why it isn't and how it's different. I don't want to view it that way anymore because it doesn't seem that way but it ticks the boxes.
Things like indoctrination of the young and threat of punishment of hell if you left never sat well with me so what do you think and how do you think it's different? Once again I don't beleive it's a cult but I can't quite figure out why. (Another one aimed at christians. Let me know if your beleif views differently though)
  1. Do you beleive in science? Do you think of science as a religion? Is science faith based to you?
Some religious people don't trust science and I'd like to understand why not. Both science and your beleifs can be valid simotaneously since god is supernatural and science deals with natural things so why is science bad to you?
Do you think science is flawed, if so how and why?
You do not have to answer every single one of these questions. Just If a few pop out to you I want to hear your response. I'm not gonna say I'd never be religious but it's not my aim in this post, nor is the aim to make you lose your beleifs I just want to learn form people and not just the insane angry christians on facebook. That isn't all of you and it's unfair to shape my opinion of you on that so to be less judgmental I must listen to you all.
I am open and wanting to change my honest underlying hatred of the religious due to abuse and upbringing. No I'm not religiously traumatized and that's why I "lost faith" I don't want any of those. I lost faith because I love facts, and I simply didn't like the idea of the religion not being based on anything that I could see to be proven factual. You can argue I stopped going to church because it made me uncomfortable but it wasn't the reason I stopped beleiving.
Even if I disagree strongly with some of you, which I will, it is impossible to live and not disagree strongly. Some of these disagreements may lead me to not really like you but I must respect your personal opinion so long as that opinion isn't forced unto others. Even if you are forcing it I'm not gonna argue about that under this post. I am asking for your opinions regardless if I agree or not so I cannot get mad when you give them.
The abortion and lgbt question I know is going to make a lot of people devicive. I don't like pro lifers or anti lgbtq people but just because I don't like them doesn't mean I shouldn't learn from or try to better understand them. Understanding gives me self peace and even is someone here beleives I shouldn't be trans if they're honest about it and explain it's easier to move on than constantly wondering why. I prefer that to saying you aren't against me being trans but constantly trying to make me doubt being trans or detranstition. You obviously aren't okay with it. Just say it and we can all move on.
Reddit may auto delete some comments unfortunately because of anti lgbtq sayings or opinions. I want to hear them so if it gets deleted dm me and I'll try to respond. Answer here if you can it's easier to keep track of but if you have a lot of questions for me you can DM me as well.
This once again is mainly aimed at christianity but if you are of a different religion and find some of these questions pop out at you let me know about your religion! It makes it easier to respect and understand others if I know all of what's out there :).
Once again please don't try to convert me. Give me facts and your opinion if those facts/ opinions change my mind so be it but please no "you must find god in your heart" or " listen to the word of God" that stuff isn't going to change my mind or forward the discussion. I live in georgia. I hear that all the time and if a church lady at my door can't convert me with those words, you will not be able to convert me with the same words over text.
I am once again not trying to convert you. My beleifs are that differencing beleifs are essential for us to move forward as a society even if some of those beleifs are uncomfortable.
Don't be malitious, I'm not trying to diss your religion and I'll try and word responses so it doesn't come off that way I'm not trying to change your beleif but understand and offer my opinion. If my opinion changes your beleif so be it but I will not be the guy to go "well I didn't see jesus walk on water so it didn't happen" I cannot prove or disprove your god or beleifs if they are supernatural. I can't do that so it just makes the discussion go circular and lead nowhere. The only argument I will make is if information you give me is false in which I will dispute it and offer citation of where I got my information which you are free to criticize!
I'm not gonna tell you your opinion is wrong but if you say "gay guys are rapists" I will dispute that. You can have the opinion that you don't like gay guys, you can't spread false information. That's just manipulative and shapes other people's opinions based on the same false information which means they aren't making choices based on reality but your reality.
Since age is important and sex too for some people regarding these issues I am 17, I am a transgender male, I am gay.
Thank you in advance for sharing and helping me better myself and understand. It really does mean alot no matter how hard the pill may be to swallow.
submitted by Arophax1 to INTP [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 22:25 Arophax1 (Serious) Why do you beleive in religion/ the supernatural and why is it important to you?

This got taken down. Before on change my view. If it gets taken out again I'll remove the more sensitive questions since this is important to me.
If a reddit moderator is reading this no i am not pushing athiesm. That is not my goal. I am not trying to disprove god. I genuinely want to learn from the religious. Learn about their beleifs and why they beleive it. I want to understand is all because I have become toxic towards religious people irl which is making me a bad person. I want to be a good human being and an accepting one. That requires understanding. The queer questions I am not debating. If someone explains why they don't like trans people (I am trans and gay so you know) I am not going to debate them or escalate things. I simply will ask why, and once explained move on.
I may disagree but I'm not trying to change minds I'm trying to understand them. If this does not fit your reddit I understand and okay but I just want to try and ask with those added questions since they are important to me. I will remove them if they are too much though.
Up front, some of these questions get deep and hard to answer. Comments will probably have pro lifers, anti lgbtq, and anti feminists.
I do not agree with those opiolnions but I am asking for them. I want to understand them. Not all of the questions are doom and gloom! Some are quite peaceful, just wanted to warn if your're sensitive to those viewpoints don't view the comments and don't argue with them over their opinions. I'm not going to personally. I asked their opinion, I can't then argue about it I can only ask why. I will argue over false information but that's it. If you say gay people are bad because they kiss the same sex I won't agree with it, but you formed your opinion on a fact so I can't argue against it.
This post may not be bigotry but the comments may be so I understand if my post just gets deleted. I am NOT trying to instigate. I just want the opinions. I don't want to argue over anything but facts not opinions. This is also mainly pertaining to religion. I want to know how religion backs up their claims. Once again to understand. I do argue with these types of people but not today, today I want to understand.
This is a discussion mainly pertaining to religion and the religious/spiritual. Please, no athiests giving their opinion on what religious think. If you used to be religious and have a reason why you used to beleive a certain point then that's fine but I don't want any "it's because christians blank" stuff. You aren't them so you can't vouch for them.
Some of the questions don't require religious affiliation so athiests can respond to those but if it's specific to religion, please don't put your opinion. I'm asking for theirs specifically.
Alright for starters I'm athiestic, born in the Bible belt and raised in church.
I am not currently going to change my athiestic views, I found happiness in it. Does that mean I'll never change my views? No. But it is a pretty big viewpoint that would take me more than one discussion. Right now I want to change my opinions on religion. I am currently dismissive. Others should beleive what they want but often, and this is a bad trait of mine, if you say you believe in gods or spirits or an afterlife I roll my eyes and think "stupid but okay" which is wrong.
I cannot truly be neutral on religion if I view it negatively and get upset when asked to join in a prayer or would groan if asked to go to church with someone on a special occasion. I should be open to it and not force myself not to enjoy something simply because I don't beleive in it.
I will make my world views clear. I am athiestic and a TST Satanist. For those who do not know TST satanism is a denomination that mainly surrounds separation of church and state and pushing forth that all religions and lack of religions should be viewed equally.
This post is to help with me better practicing one of our tenets which is not to force others to be athiestic or TST Satanist and instead accept all view points so long as there is no harm. Despite this I will be asking for viewpoints surround harm to. I won't agree with you but understanding is how we change minds so regardless of that's right now, I will listen.
I personally do not beleive any religious text should be in law, nor is a reliable foundation for law. It's fine if you use it to dictate your own life (once again given the text isn't telling you to harm yourself majorly in order to please a deity, fasting is fine to me but self harm like cutting or other things of the sort i do not agree with) but when you use it to dictate others is when I no longer agree with you
I AM NOT TRYING TO PUSH THIS OPINION. I want to make.it absolutely clear this point is not to convert you to athiesm. It is not push athiest good Christian bad. It is to understand differing viewpoints. That is all. I am biased to think religion is bad. I want to change that.
I may ask questions about lgbtq and women's rights. That's not because I think all christians are anti queer etc. They are not but those who are I want to understand why they have that opinion. The better I understand people the better I can be and understanding a viewpoint even if it's against my own helps me better understand people who think that way.
If you comment why you are anti lgbtq I'm not gonna try and change your mind. I'll ask why and that will be the end of it because for now that is all I want to know. I don't really want other people to respond to responses under this post. This is not a debate. If someone gives an opinion and explains why move on, even if you disagree. I am meant to disagree with some of these points that's the point, I can disagree so long as I understand. If you bring up false factual information I will inform you of that but I won't scream "you're wrong!" That's not the goal here.
If you ask me something to clarify I will and if you ask for sources I will give them. Don't debate me. My opinion is my own. Ask why but once I explain move on. You can criticize sources same as I can yours and you do not need a source to lay your opinion. Just an explanation.
There are a lot of questions but they all pertain to the same general topic. It just specifies the question a bit more.
Here are a range of questions I have along with some opinions. If a questions strikes you please answer it but let me know the question number so I know what you are referencing. It will make things much smoother. Not all questions need to be answered by everyone. You can if you want but I'm expecting you respond to what's important to you. Now let's begin.
  1. Why does religion bring you comfort?
    Why does it bring you comfort, and if you beleive athiesm is sad, why is that? Sure I joke about being a piece of sentient meat flying on a speck of dirt but that doesn't make me feel meaningless. Things will end and I will never feel this again. Is that scary? Sure, all unknowns are scary, but it's also cool. What if you never became a sentient creature? Nothing much would be lost, you wouldn't know, but being here now is really cool.
  2. Why are humans more special than animals or plants? Why are we gods special little creatures.
I don't ... Let me phrase this right. I'm not saying the religious are pretentious or self rightous (understand the main religion I understand is christianity, you may have a religion where the point is you aren't devine or special, I simply may not have learned about it and if you do please inform me below. I love to learn!) But I personally don't understand why being made by a deity would bring me comfort. What's the purpose in that?
I suppose it's neat but I don't see how it brings life purpose. I am not above anything. I eat meat such as cows, but that's not because I feel I'm above them or think they are worth less than me. They satiate my hunger and keep me alive, I respect every animal I eat for providing me with life and I understand the importance of respecting them for this reason. If I was eaten tomorrow by a black bear I'd be fine with it and wouldn't want it hunted down. I am not above or below. We are one. If I take from nature to nurture myself as we all do, I must give back to nature in my death. I wish to rot out in the open, I wish for cows to feast upon grass that contains my nutrients. It only seems fair.
So the sort of idea that a god made us specifically as the top, as his special creations is peculiar to me. Why am I more special than that bear? A lot of people answer with sentience but all animals are sentient. They take actions to survive. Monkeys do things specifically for pleasure that have nothing to do with survival. If you live and breathe you're sentient. Even a worm knows it's alive.
  1. Is hell moral? What do you think hell is like? Who deserves hell? Does a hell even exist to you?
Another question I've always wondered is if your religion has a hell do you think it's moral? I know to most the god makes morality so if he sees it as moral than it is but as I see you also have free will as well. I want your honest opinion on hell. Do you think eternal punishment is fair for anyone? Do beleive in hell but only beleive it's preserved for the worst of the worst? If so who are the worst of the worst and where do those in the middle go? Do they still go heaven or are they stick in between?
Do you beleive a soul in hell can be redeemed? As in hell is like a prison you are punished and then freed, or do you think it's simply game over for the sinner? Do you think it's fair for someone to be eternally punished for mistakes they made within a 100 year time period?
  1. What are your views on heaven? Does/can it exist? Are you truly happy or forced to be? Who gets into heaven?
If you beleive in a heaven how do you think it works? Are you forced into euphoria? If someone you loved was in hell do you think you could truly be happy in heaven? Do you think happiness can exist without misery to contrast and vise versa?
For those who beleive not believing is reason for hell do you think those who never got the chance to learn are included? If so why? If not, why not? If I am just by happenstance someone who doesn't beleive but lives by his rules. Of course do minor sins in my life but as a whole try my best do I still go to heaven or am I to go to hell?
  1. Is your god all loving or is he to be feared? Is he both? If so how?
Is god loving or hateful? It took the sacrifice of jesus for God to offer people redemption. Why couldn't he simply offer it based on character and if a person tried to be good in life or not? Why do you beleive it required sacrifice?
Am I to fear him or love him? If he is indeed all loving why would there be a need to fear? Wouldn't he be understanding and if we failed our earth test teach us in heaven ?
  1. Is your religious text law? Why or why not?
For those who beleive that the bible or any holy book is law why? Some of this is specifically aimed at christianity but if this applies to your religion as well please comment your response. Why should we follow the laws of your text? Which laws do we follow? Is the old testament valid or invalid. If it is valid then is stoning people okay? If not how do you know?
Why are you personally religious? I don't mean "I was raised in church" but rather did you ever ask yourself why you beleive and why you continue to beleive. I don't not want to convert to athiesm I just want to know why YOU chose to beleive something.
  1. Do you truly think God isn't flawed at all? Is he omnipotent and all powerful? If so why doesn't he help those who need him?
If god is omnipotent he knows if you are going to heaven or hell and exactly how you'll respond to every scenerio. In that case what is the point of earth as a trial? I may misunderstand what you mean by omnipotent to please inform me but this has always confused me.
If he is all powerful why does he refuse to help some but help others? Some people live entirely miserable lives of no fault of their own, some of these people are even religious, but he doesn't seem to help them. I see the bible perceived as fact a lot (you may be christian and not beleive this, and that's valid and I would like to know why) but if it is factual and he did split open oceans and cause plauges could he not make sure that homeless man isn't picking the rotten parts off dumpster sandwiches to survive?
I know trials are a thing but but why are these trials so vastly different? Some people don't get into the college they wanted while others are diagnosed with cancer at 5. Those are not equally easy to overcome or even close to as much of a strain on faith as the other and seems kind of unfair. If you give two people a test, one an sat, another a 5th grade biology test and the sat tester fails it kinda seems set up and rigged against them?
I am once again trying to understand. I don't understand, there can be a reason that you have that I did not know and I would like to know so I can understand why people beleive despite horrible tragedies.
  1. What's the buzz about faith? Why is it necessary?
If faith is necessary to your beleifs why? Why would having proof of a god eliminate free will. People could still choose to follow or not follow him. It would give people more free will I think. I just personally find it unfair to require someone to beleive in your existence with no solid proof of said existence.
If you're response to that question is "science is faith based too" why do you beleive that?
9.Should children be brought up into your personal religion? (My personal opinion is no but please let me know if you beleive otherwise and why you think so.)
This one is touchy though I guess this all is but do you think it's morally right to push an impressionable (I use impressionable not to try and make religious who do this sound evil, I don't think they are but was the best word I could use to describe how children beleive just about anything coming from and authority such as parent therefore find it difficult to fo their own opinions) child into any beleifs, athiestic, theist, or religious? My personal stance is no. People should be given an array of religious texts and choose for themselves which brings them most comfort, I wouldn't even want my child to become an atheist because papa is, I would want them to make that choice on their own. But if you think otherwise then why?
  1. Why do you beleive in reincarnation, ghosts, and or souls?
Reincarnation and ghost people, why do you beleive in that? How do you imagine it works? If you are reborn and don't remember the past life why does it matter. How is that different than simply dying/ being born? If not, why?
I'm assuming you beleive in souls if you beleive in ghosts. What is the soul and why do you beleive in it? Why aren't ghosts present everywhere? Odds are somebody at some point has been burried beneath where you are so why aren't we all haunted? (This is a western understanding of the ghost, if you have a different beleif once again share. I really want to learn!) Could there be a happy ghost or do they all have to be miserable?
  1. Why are you pro life? How does your religion tie into it if you are?
Another touchy one, so please no violent arguments. I'm pro choice, that isn't going to change, but you may be able to change my understanding and not assume being pro life means being unsympathetic for having a singular opinion. People are sums of their parts. One part doesn't make them bad even if I strongly disagree. The world isn't black and white. Why do you think abortion is wrong? If a baby is too much for the mother's body and she is dying does the child or mom's life come first? For rape victims why do you think they should follow through with birth? Child rape victims too, I just want to understand.
12.Do you agree with sex ed? Do you think it's a famly matter? Do you think people should practice abstinence? Why? Should people wait til marriage? Is causual sex wrong to you?
Do you think sex ed is good? Why or why not? If you think it's inappropriate then why? If you think it's a family matter then why? Why shouldn't kids learn of their body and about sex from people who have studied sex organs and sex their whole life. Why no condoms or birth control if your're against it? It's lowers std spread and teen pregnancy, and birth control also helps people who have bad periods or crazy hormone levels so if you are, why are you against it?
If you beleive in a abstinence why? I beleive people should choose if they want sex before or after marriage absolutely! But why it wrong for others to want to explore that beforehand. Some people such as myself don't ever wish to get married so why would it be wrong? if you are waiting on marriage why? That's not a bad thing at all I think it's wonderful for people to know what they want for themselves but what's special about waiting for marriage to you?
13.Are you anti lgbtq? If so why? If not , why not? Do you think the bible backs your beleifs? How so? Would you still vote for queer rights even if you personally don't agree. Why or why not?
Once again touchy. No fighting In comments. I want to try and understand please and no discussion goes anywhere by just spewing hate. If you think the bible or any religious text is anti lgbtq why? Do you think gay people are immoral? Why do YOU beleive being gay is wrong, not just the religious text, but do you think being gay causes harm or is a bad thing? If you don't beleive it causes harm but still see it as wrong why do you think God sees it as wrong?
Do you think queer people should be allowed to be queer even if you disagree? Why or why not?
Should trans people be allowed to transition even if you disagree? Why or why not? How do you define gender? If based on gentalia how do you define hermaphrodites? Why do you think God thinks transitioning is wrong?
Do you view us as evil? I know that's far out there but some do see us as really bad and almost demo like. If that's you please explain your beleif and why you beleive it. Do you think I'm a bad person for being queer or misguided? Do you think gay people deserve hell?
  1. Is man above woman or equal? Are men to be the leaders and women servants? Why?
This confused me in church a lot as well. The whole idea that every man was to lead his wife despite some women clearly being smarte stronger than some men. Do you beleive this is true? Should men have the final say, if so why?
I'd that how it was meant to be taken? If so how was it mean to be taken. What does man leads the house mean to you?
  1. What do you think about bible controdictory/mistranslation.
Is mistranslation okay? There are many rewrites of the Bible that contradict eachother, is the text still valid to you? Is it valid but only the original translation? If you use one of the modern translations why do you trust It? If you use a specific modern translation why that specific one?
This isn't to disprove your beleifs just understand the bible more, and why people use the Bible more. I'm not trying to do an "unreliable text" jab. I just want to hear your ideas on which bible is the one people should listen to and why, if you follow the bible at all.
  1. Do you think your religious text is constantly misunderstood and used wrong. If so why?
I've met christians who are pro choice, pro lgbtq, and pro feminism who claim the bible supports their views and that people use the text wrong. How so? Why are their interpretations incorrect? How did you conclude that the bible supports your opinion and not a different one? Do you even beleive in the bible or do you skip it and simple beleive in the Bible's version of god?
  1. Do you beleive in voodoo/ witchcraft. If so why and why is it important to you? Also if it works then why not use it as often?
I've been introduced to voodoo and witch type people and cannot grasp the beleif. I don't understand how certain rocks (this is a simplictic explanation, there's more to it than that but still usually some natural elements are often used because of special "powers") and things cause things to happen. Why do you beleive it and is it more than just positions and revenge. (I'm also not talking about nature witchcraft, you may share that too below but this is aimed more towards magic kind of witchcraft.
  1. Is your religion a cult..why or why not?
To explain I see a lot of religions as cults.it's why I often view them on a bad light so I need to understand why it isn't and how it's different. I don't want to view it that way anymore because it doesn't seem that way but it ticks the boxes.
Things like indoctrination of the young and threat of punishment of hell if you left never sat well with me so what do you think and how do you think it's different? Once again I don't beleive it's a cult but I can't quite figure out why. (Another one aimed at christians. Let me know if your beleif views differently though)
  1. Do you beleive in science? Do you think of science as a religion? Is science faith based to you?
Some religious people don't trust science and I'd like to understand why not. Both science and your beleifs can be valid simotaneously since god is supernatural and science deals with natural things so why is science bad to you?
Do you think science is flawed, if so how and why?
You do not have to answer every single one of these questions. Just If a few pop out to you I want to hear your response. I'm not gonna say I'd never be religious but it's not my aim in this post, nor is the aim to make you lose your beleifs I just want to learn form people and not just the insane angry christians on facebook. That isn't all of you and it's unfair to shape my opinion of you on that so to be less judgmental I must listen to you all.
I am open and wanting to change my honest underlying hatred of the religious due to abuse and upbringing. No I'm not religiously traumatized and that's why I "lost faith" I don't want any of those. I lost faith because I love facts, and I simply didn't like the idea of the religion not being based on anything that I could see to be proven factual. You can argue I stopped going to church because it made me uncomfortable but it wasn't the reason I stopped beleiving.
Even if I disagree strongly with some of you, which I will, it is impossible to live and not disagree strongly. Some of these disagreements may lead me to not really like you but I must respect your personal opinion so long as that opinion isn't forced unto others. Even if you are forcing it I'm not gonna argue about that under this post. I am asking for your opinions regardless if I agree or not so I cannot get mad when you give them.
The abortion and lgbt question I know is going to make a lot of people devicive. I don't like pro lifers or anti lgbtq people but just because I don't like them doesn't mean I shouldn't learn from or try to better understand them. Understanding gives me self peace and even is someone here beleives I shouldn't be trans if they're honest about it and explain it's easier to move on than constantly wondering why. I prefer that to saying you aren't against me being trans but constantly trying to make me doubt being trans or detranstition. You obviously aren't okay with it. Just say it and we can all move on.
Reddit may auto delete some comments unfortunately because of anti lgbtq sayings or opinions. I want to hear them so if it gets deleted dm me and I'll try to respond. Answer here if you can it's easier to keep track of but if you have a lot of questions for me you can DM me as well.
This once again is mainly aimed at christianity but if you are of a different religion and find some of these questions pop out at you let me know about your religion! It makes it easier to respect and understand others if I know all of what's out there :).
Once again please don't try to convert me. Give me facts and your opinion if those facts/ opinions change my mind so be it but please no "you must find god in your heart" or " listen to the word of God" that stuff isn't going to change my mind or forward the discussion. I live in georgia. I hear that all the time and if a church lady at my door can't convert me with those words, you will not be able to convert me with the same words over text.
I am once again not trying to convert you. My beleifs are that differencing beleifs are essential for us to move forward as a society even if some of those beleifs are uncomfortable.
Don't be malitious, I'm not trying to diss your religion and I'll try and word responses so it doesn't come off that way I'm not trying to change your beleif but understand and offer my opinion. If my opinion changes your beleif so be it but I will not be the guy to go "well I didn't see jesus walk on water so it didn't happen" I cannot prove or disprove your god or beleifs if they are supernatural. I can't do that so it just makes the discussion go circular and lead nowhere. The only argument I will make is if information you give me is false in which I will dispute it and offer citation of where I got my information which you are free to criticize!
I'm not gonna tell you your opinion is wrong but if you say "gay guys are rapists" I will dispute that. You can have the opinion that you don't like gay guys, you can't spread false information. That's just manipulative and shapes other people's opinions based on the same false information which means they aren't making choices based on reality but your reality.
Since age is important and sex too for some people regarding these issues I am 17, I am a transgender male, I am gay.
Thank you in advance for sharing and helping me better myself and understand. It really does mean alot no matter how hard the pill may be to swallow.
submitted by Arophax1 to TooAfraidToAsk [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 20:33 Gileriodekel Some changes coming to /r/Mormon rules

Last year we were growing large enough and quick enough that we decided to hammer out some new rules to run the community from. Our first step was to revamp our flair system to allow folks to better filter what they want to see. This was on 09/28/19 and our subscriber count at the time was 12,980.
3 months later on 12/27/19, after months of discussions, the mods released The New /Mormon Rules in order to be transparent with how the community operates. The subscriber count at this point in time was 14,378.
Since we rolled out our new flair system we have seen a over 7,400 new subscribers, which represents a 35% boost in subscribers.
While these statistics are pretty cool, the purpose of me telling you this isn't to brag about our community. The purpose is to share about how our community is going to grow next. Right now the mods have only made a couple firm decisions about how we feel will move the community to its next stage:
 

Calendar

We introduced the calendar back in July but we felt like this is a big enough addition that it should be mentioned again. We wanted a better way to keep track of these events for the community than posting about it a couple days beforehand. We found that Reddit has a calendar sidebar widget, and we decided to add it to our sidebar.
The calendar is used as a way to notify people of any other upcoming events in the Mormon world, such as Pioneer day, Sunstone Symposium, FairMormon Conference, any marches/parades, meetups, clubs, seminars, or anything of this sort of nature. If you know of an event that you think should be added to the calendar, make a post and ping one of the mods or message the mods directly and we'll add it to the calendar.
We want to highlight that this calendar is for the community, and we welcome user additions to it. Please use it to share things that might of interest to the broader Mormon related audience.
EDIT: with the help of StevenRushing we added a direct link to the calendar in our menu :) Thanks Steven!
 

Flairs

The flair system is a great idea; it allows people to know what the topic of the conversation is before they even click on the post. However, the only explanation we have given as to what is expected for the flairs was given last September. Since then its been whatever someone feels is the best label. However, time has proven this hasn't been the best idea, since we as mods weren't consistently clear on what the purpose of each flair was for.
I recently went through 30 days of posts with the "Controversial" flair and found some interesting trends. I found that 26% of posts would probably be better flaired "cultural" and 5% of posts as "Scholarship". This didn't surprise me since a lot of mod time is spent with reflairing posts that have the wrong flair. I also found that about 17% of "Controversial" posts were about apologetics.
In light of this, we are making some big changes to our flair system.
The first big change is we are adding, removing, and changing some of our flairs. The new set and their definitions will be:
The second big change is Automod will automatically sticky a comment to each post and remind the community of what the expectation for that post is. For example, if someone posted a meta post, automod would say:
Hello! This is a META post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about Mormon and/or other Mormon-related subreddits.
Gileriodekel, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.
To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
The last big change to the flair system is that we will be requiring flair for every post. This will help the community better pick and be reminded of what flair is best appropriate for their content.
 

Crossposts

Part of the rules we rolled out in January was banning crossposts from /Exmormon and the faithful subs. We had a couple of different reasons for this: 1. We wanted to bring conversations to our community, not direct people to other communities. 2. During The Great SoCalChrist Brigading of 2019 the mods of the faithful subs came to us and asked us to ban folks from directing the brigading to their community. We agreed that they shouldn't have to deal with the shitshow either so we agreed. After things settled down the faithful mods asked if we would keep this temporary rule a permanent one. They said that linking to their community more often than not just lead to brigading them. We wanted to be good neighbors so we agreed to do so.
Our current rule 0.4.3 says:
This sub is not a "safe space" or a "free-for-all" in terms of speech. We are a community built around free and honest discussion, but as with all communities, there have to be ground rules.
The rest of the rules describe those ground rules. Among those are rules 2, 3, and 4.
Rule 2 encourages us to treat each other with general respect in order to stimulate productive and thoughtful conversations. Rule 3 encourages us to be honest and transparent about our intentions, stay on topic, and to not silence others. Rule 4 says that posting your content (which is off site) is fine, but it should not be the only way that you contribute to the community; in other words be a part of the community if you want to use us as a platform for your content.
A couple of weeks ago a user pointed out to the mods that /CougarBoardGems seems to break the spirit of rule 2. They compared it to a kind of Exmormon response to /ExmoCringe. They made a good case as to why both of these subs are problematic to the goals of our community as outlined in out rules. This is why from now on we are banning crossposts from subreddits whose primary purpose is to mock or demean others. That would rule out /CougarBoardGems, /ExmoCringe, any cringe sub, or subreddits dedicated to demeaning others. This rule does not curtail the ability of users to quote content from other subreddits for discussion, with the goal of discussing current events, cultural trends, or bringing closed discussion into this forum where it can be openly discussed. Remember that the goals of this subreddit are to increase civil, and respectful dialogue.
 

"Gotcha"

Our sub has gained a lot of steam; since January we have gained over 6,000 subscribers, which represents about a 30% increase. Last year we recognized the need for the "gotcha" rule, and implemented that. Arguably that is the rule that is violated the most. We decided that since it is such a big deal, we needed to hammer out more details for the rule. Rule 3, in its entirety, will now read as follows:
3 Gotcha
3.1 DEFINITION
Do not seek out to needlessly dismiss, silence, mock, or convert others.
3.2 QUALIFICATIONS FOR RULE BREAKING:
Our goal is to foster a community that seeks to understand and be understood through valuable discussion. This requires a willingness to accept that other people will come to conclusions and hold beliefs that are different from yours. When contributing to the community, do not assume that everyone shares or understands your beliefs. We encourage good faith discussion over different points of view, but you should not seek out to needlessly dismiss, silence, mock, or convert others. Such content is a poor foundation of respect/civility. Doing so ultimately leads to the conclusion that there are no valid alternative views. Diversity of thought and sometimes disagreement are the foundation upon which interesting conversations are based.
Content that contributes to shutting down meaningful conversation is not tolerated, regardless of intent, especially if the comment is made without follow-up or the intent is clearly contemptuous. If a contributor who is engaging in this behavior becomes hostile or belligerent after correction, that contributor will also be banned on an as-needed basis. If you feel that you are triggered by a comment, please take some time away instead of lashing out and come back to participate with a desire to understand where others are coming from.
3.3 EXAMPLES OF RULE BREAKING:
This rule is highly contextual, and so it is difficult to come up with a comprehensive list of how to violate it. We have a couple of examples of how the this rule may be broken.
This comment by Bow-of-fine-steel gives good hypotheticals about what is and is not ok. Some more examples would include: - Whataboutisms - "mic drops" - "drive-by pwning" - Mocking - Posting content with the explicit purpose of de-converting someone else. For example, linking to the CES letter with no comment on a post by a believer who is struggling with their testimony. Instead, encourage them to seek all available sources, and list the CES letter as one of several links they can look into. Or better yet, say what your own experience was and offer to provide resources if they are interested, and then only provide links when requested. - Comment "but Brigham Young was racist..." on a post that is completely unrelated to racism or Brigham Young. Please stay on topic. - Comment "but what about the $100 billion hedge fund?" on a post highlighting humanitarian work. Instead, focus on the topic of humanitarian work or write a civil comment about how you believe the hedge fund and humanitarian work are related and what you conclude from that. - Reply to a post about a faith transition with judgement about their adherence to gospel standards or speculation about what sins they may be guilty of that would cause a loss of the spirit, as you see it. Instead, show respect for the faith journey of others, avoid making morality judgements about others, and comment how you might react to the situation instead. - Reply to a post about a vulnerable spiritual experience with "that would be nice if God existed". Instead, if you must express disagreement, comment along the lines of "My experience has been different, but I see this was an important experience for you. How do you distinguish between..."
One common element in responses designed shut down conversation is that they tend to be a link without comment or a single sentence or two. We will not be moderating based on the length of content, but if your comment or post is a knee jerk reaction to something else, you should stop and consider whether it is attempting to shut down further discussion.
Additionally, many things that might be inappropriate as a response to someone else would be appropriate if you decided to just start your own thread about the topic.
 

Politics

Politics are inherently divisive, especially now-a-days and leading up to the election. We've found that political posts often devolve into vitriol.
In light of this, we are adding a new rule: No politics. It will be added to our sidebar and its long-form version will read as:
7 No Politics
7.1 DEFINITION
Politics are not permitted unless they are directly related to Mormonism.
7.2 QUALIFICATIONS FOR RULE BREAKING
  • Actions of individual politicians who happen to be Mormon
  • Political topics that are of interest to Mormons but not directly related to Mormonism
Posts unacceptable for this subreddit should be redirected to /MormonPolitics or /MoPolitics.
7.3 EXCEPTIONS
  • Political policies promoted by a Mormon sect
  • Analysis of how Mormons are affected by a political policy
  • Politician who describes their relationship with Mormonism
 

Changes to Moderation team

Please see ArchimedesPPL's post here
 

Other

The mods are weighing the pros an cons of some other rules as well. If we decide to move forward with them they will get their own separate posts and also be added to this list of changes.
 
On a more personal note, you guys are amazing. This community means a hell of a lot to me. I have made good friends here and have been able to express my life and spiritual journey with people here. This community is definitely becoming its own place, and not just living in the shadows of others anymore and I'm excited to see it grow! :)
 
If you guys have any feedback on the new rules or potential rules that we could add or tweak the mods are all ears!
Keep Mormoning!
submitted by Gileriodekel to mormon [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 20:07 Rumored17 Refutations for Every Main Pro-Pit Argument

1."It's all how you raise them."

And more:
• ⁠Lockwood, R. A. N. D. A. L. L. (2016). Ethology, ecology and epidemiology of canine aggression. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour & Interactions with People,, 160-181.
• ⁠Abrantes, R., Site, A., Camp, S., Diving, F. A. Q., Camp, G. P., Pages, M., ... & User, C. C. (2016). Aggressive Behavior—Inheritance and Environment.
• ⁠van den Berg, L. I. N. D. A. (2016). Genetics of dog behavior. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People, 5, 69.
• ⁠O'Neill, D. G., & Packer, R. M. (2016). The First Canine Behavior and Genetics Conference: Summary and recommendations for future directions in canine behavioral science. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 16, 6-12.
• ⁠Sørensen, M. (2016). Breeding aggression: Review of recent literature concerning the influence of genes on aggressive behaviour (Doctoral dissertation).
• ⁠Schilder, M. B., van der Borg, J. A., & Vinke, C. M. (2019). Intraspecific killing in dogs: predation behavior or aggression? A study of aggressors, victims, possible causes and motivations. Journal of Veterinary Behavior.
These studies all show that genetics play a large role in dog behavior. Most are related to Pit Bulls or aggression, but some just show that there are noticeable differences between dog breeds based on their breed. Here are some anecdotal sources to support the claims that Pit Bulls are born with a tendency to be aggressive:
In addition, "it's all how you raise them" goes against the very existence of dog breeds. If someone is arguing this, they are saying a Labrador Retriever will have the same instincts as a Border Collie, which will have the same instincts as a Doberman, which will have the same instincts as a Great Pyrenees, which will have the same instincts as a Dachshund, etc. This is observably and demonstrably false. Humans created different dog breeds with different temperaments and physical and behavioral traits through selective breeding. This is why dog breeds exist, this is why breed standards exist, this is why people can reasonably and accurately predict how a dog will act based on breed. Are there exceptions? Of course. However, that is just what they are- exceptions. Different dog breeds have different traits and tendencies dependent on what they were selectively bred for.

2. "Chihuahuas are more aggressive."

This is just a disingenuous attempt to derail the conversation. Even if Chihuahuas are more aggressive, they don't/can't kill people. If Chihuahuas were as large as Pit Bulls, perhaps this would be a conversation worth having- seeing as this is not the case, there is no argument to be had here.
I try to emphasize that the issue with Pits is how many people and pets they kill. Pit Bulls are not just biting people- they are killing, severely maiming, and mauling people. There is a huge difference, and it is important to recognize many Pit fanatics will try to lump in all dog bites with the maulings Pit Bulls are responsible for. They are not the same. This is similar to the "Labs bite more" argument- again, we are not just talking about bites. Keep the discussion focused on severe maulings, maimings, and deaths, because that is what BSL targets.
From 1982-2020 no Chihuahua has ever killed anyone. This source breaks down attacks by breed, child or adult victim, and death or maiming.

3. "There's no such thing as a Pit Bull." and "Pit Bulls can't be identified."

A good way to avoid even getting to this apologist bingo point is by using the phrasing "Pit Bull type dogs" as opposed to Pit Bulls. However, you can also just explain that "Pit Bull" is an umbrella term for four closely related dog breeds- the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and the American Bully. The American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier are actually so similar they can be dual registered as an AmStaff with the AKC and a APBT with the UKC. Until recently, most dog DNA tests would not even separate AmStaff from APBT due to the extreme similarities. This is also just another deflection technique- everyone knows what someone means by "Pit Bull" just as everyone knows what someone means by "Golden Retriever." This is what "pit bull" means legally.
Now, because "Pit Bull" does refer to 4 dog breeds rather than one, Pit apologists will often cry "well of course 4 dog breeds will kill more people!" but keep in mind that these 4 dog breeds have killed more people than 300+ other dog breeds combined. The Pit Bull umbrella kills more people than every other group or type of dogs and more than every other dog breed combined.
Regarding Pit Bulls being unidentifiable:
Pit Bulls have just as many obvious identifying characteristics as other dog breeds. There is no reason to believe Pit Bulls suffer from misidentification more than other dog breeds. There is reason to believe Pit Bulls are intentionally mislabeled as other breeds when in shelters, however. In addition, when discussing fatal Pit Bull attacks specifically, more often than not there are photos of the Pit Bulls involved so anyone can verify for themselves if they were Pit Bull type dogs. Genetic testing is not required for breed identification- anyone who argues this is being disingenuous. Another point is that we are constantly inundated with Pro-Pit propaganda; there is simply no way we can have Pixar shorts such as Kitbull and a new Dodo video every week about Pit Bulls and still be expected to believe the average person cannot visually identify a Pit Bull.

4. "Pits are no more dangerous than other dogs."

The statistics also support our side here- Pit Bulls have killed more people than all other dog breeds combined. Pit Bulls are not the largest, nor the strongest dogs out there. They do not have the strongest bite force. They are more deadly than other dog breeds because humans selectively bred them to be as deadly as possible. They are deadly due to the nature of their attacks and the behavioral traits they display when attacking such as gameness and a bite style mentioned in some of these studies, along with their physical traits.

5. "It used to be Dobermans, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds that people wanted to ban!"

Pit Bulls have killed more people than those three breeds ever did, even at the height of their popularity, even combined. There is also no evidence supporting this claim, and in fact, quite a lot of evidence showing it's completely false.
It is important to note as well that none of these breeds have an entire lobby supporting them. They do not have communities dedicated to attack victim harassment, misinformation, and lies, unlike the Pit Bull has. Something interesting to consider is the bias online when looking at these breeds and other restricted breeds vs pages about Pit Bulls. Wikipedia in particular is very obviously being manipulated by Pit Bull fanatics.
None of this manipulation is occurring on the pages for Dobermans, Rottweilers, or German Shepherds. These three breeds never reached anywhere close to the level of suffering and carnage Pit Bulls are responsible for. There has never been a concerted effort to ban these breeds, although some are targeted by apartment restrictions due to insurance issues. There is also no lobby supporting the misinformation and misrepresentation of these breeds.

6. "Dogsbite.org is biased and unreliable."

Dogsbite is completely open and transparent about their data collection strategies. They provide identification photographs and have all of their citations publicly listed. Citations and Photographs
Here is a challenge I like to give to people who claim Dogsbite is unreliable, although I have yet to receive a legitimate response:
Have you actually looked into dogsbite.org yourself? You do know that dogsbite tracks every fatal dog attack, regardless if it's a Pit or not? It appears anti-Pit because most fatal dog attacks are done by Pits. They're not only posting Pit attacks- there are just so many more fatal Pit attacks than other breeds it appears they are. Here's a proposal for you: Go to 2020 and late 2019, a time frame for which news reports are still abundantly available all over the internet, and fact-check ANY FOUR DOG-BITE FATALITIES OF YOUR CHOOSING, two where the killer dogs are said to be pit/mixes, and two cases where the killer dogs are not said to be pit/mixes:
  1. Did DogsBite accurately name the person killed?
  2. Did DogsBite accurately summarize the circumstances in which the person was killed?
  3. Did DogsBite accurately identify the breed(s) of the killer dog(s)?
  4. Did DogsBite provide a photo or photos of the killer dog(s) so you can judge for yourself what type of dog(s) you think did the killing?
DogsBite and Wikipedia both provide links to news stories about these fatal attacks. If you don't want to use the news links provided by DogsBite, then use the ones on Wikipedia that cover the same stories. DogsBite also provides links to autopsy reports, police reports and 911 calls, so you can compare these primary sources with the summaries on the DogsBite page and assess whether those summaries are accurate.

7. "Human aggressive Pit Bulls were culled!"

This is a myth. While human aggression was not something that was typically selectively bred for it is a myth that most human aggressive Pits were culled. That was not the case, and it still is not the case today. One look at shelter descriptions of Pits with bite histories and severe aggression issues shows these dogs are not being euthanized, and there are several instances of Pit Bulls who have killed people being bred.
There's no evidence whatsoever that dog fighters routinely destroyed human-aggressive dogs and refused to breed them. u/NorthTwoZero wrote at length about why it's a myth here, and this blogger put together a documented list of famously human-aggressive fighting dogs who not only weren't "culled" but were bred so often that they produced over 1,200 known, registered offspring:
"The man-biters were culled and the pit bulls were not bred for human aggression myths were created from thin air, complete fabrications. There is not a sliver of truth in the myth that dogmen culled man-biters. Not only weren't human aggressive pit fighters NOT culled, but a talented man-biter was heavily bred, his stud services were in high demand and the stud fees commanded a premium. The progeny of man-biters are still sought out long after he or she has passed away. This Italian game-dog website lists their choice for the Best Ever fighting dogs, three of the five are known man-biters and the other two trace their origins to the others on their "Best" list. Some famous man-biters have their own facebook fan pages. If you happen to be a 10x winner with 3 kills and scratching on the carcass, people tend to overlook a little thing like the danger she poses to people and she is also likely to be nominated for the cover of this month's International Sporting Dog Journal. Some famous man-biters not only have a facebook fan page, they have their own promotional merchandise too."

8. "Pit Bulls were nanny dogs!" or "Pit Bulls were America's dog!"

First, I usually ask questions that demonstrate out how absurd that claim is. What is a nanny dog? What duties does a nanny dog perform? Why would a dog type be called a "Pit Bull" if it nannied? Where does the name "Pit Bull" come from? Why is it necessary for Pits to have such large, gaping mouths and extremely muscular bodies if they were nannies? Then here is some actual info:
The first appearance of the term "Nanny Dog" dates from a 1971 NYT interview with the then president of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America, Lillian Rant, who called Staffordshire Bull Terriers "nursemaid dogs" for no apparent reason (other than to attempt to re-brand fighting dogs as family pets).
BAD RAP shared a link. It's Dog Bite Prevention Week. Did you know that there was never such thing as a 'Nanny's Dog'? This term was a recent invention created to describe the myriad of vintage photos of children enjoying their family pit bulls (see link for details about vintage photos). While the intention behind the term was innocent, using it may mislead parents into being careless with their children around their family dog - A recipe for dog bites!
Regarding Pits being "America's dog": Bronwen Dickey (author of incredibly biased and unscientific book "Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon") and other pit bull advocates argue that pit bulls were historically beloved in the U.S. until the dogs became associated with urban people of color in the 1970s, so Pit Bull stigma is really about being racist toward black and brown people.
But pit bulls were not historically beloved in the U.S. nor were they popularly regarded as a positive symbol of plucky can-do spirit. Joseph Colby, in his lifetime one of the world's leading authorities on the Pit Bull Terrier, wrote in 1936 that "The general public is under the impression that this breed is carnivorous, vicious, and, fed on a diet of raw meat, will devour a human being" and "When the pit bull terrier was introduced into America, he was more commonly found to be owned by prize fighters, saloon keepers and habitues, sporting men and the like. From the start the breed earned an unjust reputation due to his fighting ability and the character of the owner. To this day he is still trying to live down an unjust and undeserved reputation."
Sometimes Pit people will randomly mention how Sergeant Stubby, a decorated war hero dog, was a Pit Bull. He was not. Primary (contemporary) sources most often describe Stubby as a Boston Terrier or Boston Terrier mix (this breed was sometimes called the Boston Bulldog). He is sometimes said to be a Bull Terrier (the egghead dogs) mix but he obviously resembles a Boston Terrier significantly more than a Bull Terrier. Stubby is never said to be a Pit Bull in primary sources.

9. "Pit Bulls scored 2nd highest on temperament tests and better than most family dog breeds!"

This is always referring to the ATTS, or the American Temperament Testing Society. It is refuted thoroughly in the BanPitBulls FAQ, but this is what I usually say as well:
The test was developed to test working dogs, specifically dogs meant for schutzhund work. It has never been, nor ever purported to be about testing companion animals or a breed's suitability as family pets. Scoring actually favors dogs that bite, in some cases. Breed specific temperament, aggression, and each dog's training is taken into account when scoring. This means that if a relatively untrained Lab bites a "threatening stranger" it will score far lower than a German Shepherd that bites a "threatening stranger." According to the ATTS itself, "95% of dogs who fail do so because they lack confidence" NOT because they bite. Dogs that exhibit avoidance behaviors will fail. Dogs that bite do not automatically fail. The ATTS also states that comparing scores with other dogs means nothing- the pass/fail rates cannot be compared. Different dog breeds that behave the same exact way on the test will get hugely different scores due to the fact they take inherent breed tendencies into consideration. The test is not designed to test for breed aggression, according to the ATTS website. It is more of a test of bravery for individual dogs. Timid dogs will always fail. Dogs that bite will not always fail. If anything, you could argue that the reason Pits have a high passing rate is because they bite or show aggression, although that is speculation and not proven. Either way though- the test does not test breed aggression, passing rates cannot be compared, and the test absolutely does not test for suitability as a family pet. More info here: What the ATTS is really showing.
It is also worth mentioning that the only dogs that participate in the ATTS testing are dogs brought in by their owners- it is not a random sample or scientific study of any kind. Considering the evidence showing the existence of an actual Pit Bull lobby, it would not be a reach to say these results have been intentionally manipulated (if they did even matter, which they don't).
Also, a controlled temperament test found that 13 percent, or one out of seven, pit bulls tried to bite or attack during a one hour test simulating a neighborhood walk. One out of seven pit bulls tried to bite in the span of just one hour compared to only one out of 70 golden retrievers. Note that this study was funded and authored by anti-breed ban activists: They found "no significant difference" between breeds when the definition of aggression was watered down to include even whining or crying. But pay close attention to Table 5 on page 138: out of all the breeds tested, pit bulls were markedly the worst when it came to the percentage of dogs that reached a more serious level of aggression.

10. "It's racism for dogs!"

Humans are not dogs, and dog breeds are not analogous to human races.
In addition, one cannot compare a race of people to a breed of dogs for a multitude of reasons. Dog breeds were selectively, intentionally bred for specific characteristics and traits by human beings. Humans created dog breeds based on what physical and behavioral traits we wanted them to have. (Spaniels for flushing, retrievers for fetching prey/birds without damage, livestock guardian dogs such as Great Pyrenees for protecting livestock, Huskies for endurance and energy, Pointers for pointing, etc. Different dog breeds have different behavioral tendencies because humans selectively bred them to have those tendencies). Dogs also do not suffer from cultural differences, institutionalized racism, or socioeconomic disparities. Humans are also not as heavily influenced by our instincts as dogs are. Dogs behave based on their instincts and training. Humans behave mainly on their "training." Humans also have far more complex thought processes and the ability to make complex decisions. Dogs do not. You could go on and on but that is the basic overview there- dogs were selectively bred and rely mainly on their instincts. Humans were not selectively bred and are capable of making complex and rational decisions.
Post continued in the comments due to the character limit.
submitted by Rumored17 to BanPitBulls [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 19:11 The_Milano99 Can someone evaluate my essay?

Issue Topic: Many important discoveries or creations are accidental: it is usually while seeking the answer to one question that we come across the answer to another.
Response:
The prompt mentioning that many important discoveries are accidental plays on the fact that the discoveries that are accidental tend to stand out. As humans, we are curious and are naturally attracted towards something we do not expect. The accidental tend to discoveries stand out because it is not something that is anticipated, and as a result, it does not fit with the pattern of discoveries which have required intensive focus and study. In my opinion, I disagree with the statement.
Proponents of this idea might point towards the myriad of discoveries that have been accidental. One such popular example, the discovery of Penicillin, might not have happened if it wasn’t for the carelessness of a certain Alexander Fleming. This general principle of finding solutions in places where we don’t look is found to be common in many cases.
However, conforming to this idea might not just be unproductive, but also dangerous. For every single accidental discovery, there are ten other which required tremendous effort. Certain innovations require intensive planning and require attention for the most intricate details. For example, in order to create a spacecraft, a group of scientists and engineers would spend years preparing it, going over every possibility and correcting every mistake. The life of the astronauts is directly related to the functioning of the spacecraft, and as a result, leaving the solution of the problems to chance may prove catastrophic. Putting man on the moon was thought to be impossible, however, the dedication of the people behind the ‘Apollo 11’ project enabled man to achieve the impossible. Not only was this mission full of risks, it also required a lot of creative thinking. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where such a mission would be successful by accident.
Sometimes, creations are the result of thinking outside the box. For instance, the iPhone was regarded as a revolutionary product. In an era of ever evolving technology, it was quite difficult for the average layman to keep up with the growing number of innovations. The iPhone essentially took all of these separate technologies and bundled them together as one product. Today, smartphones are quite common and may not seem like a big deal. However, in 2008, the iPhone was a daring creation that was was only possible due to creative thinking by Apple and intense study of the market trends and the needs of the consumer.
Humans, by nature, are extremely curious beings. We will always look to improve on what we have and find more efficient ways of solving problems. While we do this, there may be instances where we find solutions while we’re not looking for it. However, this is not an indication that we should rely on accidents to solve our problems, rather, it is an effect of our constant thirst for knowledge and improvisation.

Argument Essay: The following appeared in an e-mail sent by the marketing director of the Classical Shakespeare Theatre of Bardville.
"Over the past ten years, there has been a 20 percent decline in the size of the average audience at Classical Shakespeare Theatre productions. In spite of increased advertising, we are attracting fewer and fewer people to our shows, causing our profits to decrease significantly. We must take action to attract new audience members. The best way to do so is by instituting a 'Shakespeare in the Park' program this summer. Two years ago the nearby Avon Repertory Company started a 'Free Plays in the Park' program, and its profits have increased 10 percent since then. If we start a 'Shakespeare in the Park' program, we can predict that our profits will increase, too."

Response:
In the e-mail, the marketing director of the Classical Shakespeare Theatre concludes that the theatre should start a ‘Shakespeare in the Park’ program in order to tackle the problem of dwindling audiences and increase profit margins. However, while this conclusion might sound reasonable, it is based on several unfounded assumptions that, if not substantiated, will seriously weaken the argument. Therefore, in order to make the argument more credible, the following three questions must be answered.
First, was the quality of the productions analysed? The director argues that an increase in advertising has not translated to an increase in audiences. It may, therefore, be possible that the shows are simply not interesting enough to attract a lot of audiences. In the age of social media and online reviews, people look towards recommendations from their friends, family and acquaintances. It may be possible that due to poor acting and lower quality of story telling, the audience have been left unimpressed, and as a result have a left a negative review of the theatre. They might further discourage the people in their social circle from visiting the theatre. Therefore, it might be wiser to invest in the production quality of the theatre.
Secondly, the director cites an example of the nearby Avon Repertory Company in order to support his suggestion. He claims that the company has been successful with their ‘Free Plays in the Park’ program which has increased their profits. However, there might be other factors which contributed to the increase in profit. For instance, the Avon Repertory Company might have invested in comfortable seating, something they might have been lacking previously. The audience, now more comfortable in their seats, might be ready to attend shows that run for a lengthy period. The Company might have also partnered with fast food franchises to allow them to sell their products on their location. People who usually love to have food to go along with entertainment might then be more inclined to attend the shows knowing they’ll be able to do so with a full stomach and a delicious meal. Therefore, the director’s citation of the successes of the Avon Repertory Company in order to urge the theatre to start a ‘Shakespeare in the Park’ program may not have solid ground. He needs to provide further analysis of the conditions of the theatre in order to correctly identify the areas that need to be improvised.
Finally, the marketing director makes a direct correlation between dwindling audiences and the decrease in profits. The director also observes this trend over a period of ten years. In ten years, there might have been significant changes in a lot of factors responsible for the profit margins of the theatre. For instance, the target demographic in the current time might be vastly different to those ten years ago. The theatre might be increasing their advertising, however they might not have made the required changes in order to attract the newer audiences. Therefore, a change in advertising strategy might be an important aspect to consider. Secondly, the theatre might be consistently increasing the ticket prices in order to offset the decreasing number of people attending the shows. Along with this decision making the idea of attending the shows less appealing, it might not even translate to a decrease in profit as the ticket prices will be raised commensurately to the decreasing audience. As a result, the director has to take into account any other expenditures which might result in the theatre making less profits.
In conclusion, while the marketing director may have concluded that the introduction of a ‘Shakespeare in the Park’ program would translate to an increase in profits, he needs to provide further data in order to solidify his argument. Furthermore, he needs to provide an in depth analysis of the theatre in order to properly understand the reasons for the significant losses. If the director satisfyingly answers the above three questions, it would be possible to fully evaluate the validity of the argument.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have done this after watching u/gregmat 's videos. My test is in 7 days. Any help would be appreciated.
submitted by The_Milano99 to GRE [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 10:17 niuz-bot Descoperire genetică surprinzătoare: Nu toți vikingii erau scandinavi - [Science - Arheologie]

Analiza ADN a rămășițelor descoperite în morminte sugerează că nu toți vikingii erau scandinavi, conform unui studiu publicat miercuri în revista Nature, transmite CNN citat de Agerpres.
Citeste in continuare: https://science.hotnews.ro/stiri-arheologie-24290271-descoperire-genetica-surprinzatoare-nu-toti-vikingii-erau-scandinavi.htm
submitted by niuz-bot to niuz [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 07:55 popupmedia01 Boosting Visibility of your Restaurant Business through Social Media Marketing

Boosting Visibility of your Restaurant Business through Social Media Marketing
Regardless of whether you are an entrepreneur or a startup organizer you will discover that it is so difficult to turn into a notable brand in the commercial center. However, don't stress Popup Media Production is here to help you with respect to the improvement in the perceivability of your Restaurant name before society. Our principle objective is to build traffic to your site utilizing web-based media strategies that naturally drive focused on individuals towards your Restaurant. To expand site traffic, SEO is an unquestionable requirement device to utilize. Website optimization assists with demonstrating your substance before potential clients where they are now looking for in web indexes.
The Popup Media Production is the main Social Media Agency for Restaurants in the market with a positive notoriety among a different number of organizations. We give different advanced showcasing administrations which are recorded beneath:-
· Social Media Marketing
· Website Development
· Search Engine Optimization
· Google Ads
· Restaurant Marketing Australia
These are some computerized advertising administrations we backing to get demonstrated outcomes for your site. In the event that you need to find out about our best computerized advertising plans, at that point don't hesitate to dial the quantity of our specialists.

https://preview.redd.it/okntcwpldnn51.jpg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb8cbf7335f7b9a581da64e6ebd107929d7f2a05
Advantages of picking Popup Media Production which drive genuine outcomes
Our honor winning group guides you in an expert way about not just develop the crowd for your image additionally gets them drew in on your site through presenting a contact structure or purchasing your items.
We comprehend your requirements, future objectives, development procedures for your business, and some more.
We uphold you with the best computerized promoting administrations to develop your devotees via web-based media stages like Facebook, Pinterest and LinkedIn.
Online media is the best spot to arrange and speak with your clients.
Site advancement is another methodology that can assist with making your image mindfulness against the gigantic number of society which is given by the Best Restaurant Marketing Company in Melbourne.

https://preview.redd.it/341cmulmdnn51.jpg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aad23d78398eeb90fed35fa229d20d5a792aa0ee
What makes Popup Media Production more celebrated among huge firms?
We are sure enough with the nature of administrations we give to our significant clients as indicated by their prerequisites. We regard our clients by noting calls for citations, any broad asks, and resolve your issues utilizing powerful methodologies.
Straightforwardness of advanced showcasing administrations is the correct advance we follow to help you with respect to the cost at each and every progression. You can get a record of every single assistance you take from us and furthermore think about the demonstrated outcomes we accomplished for your business. For more information visit our website.
submitted by popupmedia01 to u/popupmedia01 [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 07:11 filipinahawaiian CRIMINAL CITATION 4 DAYS BEFORE INTERVIEW

My naturalization interview with oath-taking to follow is scheduled on Monday 9/21. However, I got a criminal violation today 9/16 for violating COVID19 law here in Hawaii. We have a court hearing on 11/15. Do I proceed with the interview? Or would it be better to reschedule it? If I do proceed with the interview, what are some possibilities?
Give me your best advice.
A little context with the citation we received: Here in Hawaii, only one person is allowed to hang out by the beach and parks. Since my boyfriend and I were in the same household, we were fishing together clueless that even though we live in the same household, we were breaking the law.
submitted by filipinahawaiian to immigration [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 06:54 filipinahawaiian I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM T_T

My problem is regarding immigration.
My naturalization interview with oath-taking to follow is scheduled on Monday 9/21. However, I got a criminal violation today 9/16 for violating COVID19 law here in Hawaii. We have a court hearing on 11/15. Do I proceed with the interview? Or would it be better to reschedule it? If I do proceed with the interview, what are some possibilities?
Give me your best advice.
A little context with the citation we received: Here in Hawaii, only one person is allowed to hang out by the beach and parks. Since my boyfriend and I were in the same household, we were fishing together clueless that even though we live in the same household, we were breaking the law.
submitted by filipinahawaiian to legaladvice [link] [comments]


2020.09.16 23:58 vivek_david_law Request for retraction

So sevral users here have asked for retraction to my last thread and series of posts
https://www.reddit.com/DebateEvolution/comments/isg6li/if_radiometric_dating_is_accurate_how_come_decay/g5i8ys1/?context=3
regarding this study
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-64497-0
While this and everything else will be denied the point I am being asked to acknowledge is this sub in all its astounding scientific intellect and complete and through knowledge of every scientific field as diverse as virus equilibrium rates to radiation dating is that the variation is only by a small margin. So, let's talk about that. I am asked to retract my comments that this is asinine. So let's talk about the desired reaction.
The premise this sub wants be to retract my disagreement is this subs position that variation of between 1 to 2% reported by the samples in the study is equivalent to the variation in the amount of the half life. This sub held argues and continues to pester me with this nonsense even after shown with citations repeatedly why this is ridiculous
**retracting statistical significance**
Cause it's like simple math dude - you can like totally take a 5 day observation and take it as a sample population of 6 million day half life of radium 226 because bonkers and statistical significance means nothing.
**retracting probabilistic nature, half life uncertainties which create natural variation in decay rates even under same conditions**
Never mind that research says that radiometric dating is probabilistic and that any to samples will vary. Never mind that half life is even an exact number but has an uncertainty calculation attached to it. Both if this will create a % variation in any measurements of rates of decay even under the same conditions
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/52/3/S51
https://fs.blog/2018/03/half-life/
The fact that they said there's a one 1% variation in rate of decay the stuff inside the box and outside the box lets us completely ignore statistical significance natural variation and assume that this also means we can assume 1% variation in half life. Because like we're science guys dude.
**retracting the fact that your conclusions actively conflict with the researcher's statements**
Sure even the researchers didn't make this conclusion about % chages in half life and were careful not to mention applying it to variation in total half life or total rate of decay. The seem to have said the opposite.
In case of no difference of the decay data with respect to the measurement inside or outside, the inside measured data must show a clear fluctuation/oscillation so that a correlation with space weather variables is evident (can become apparent).
ie - they didn't even need the samples inside the box and outside to have different decay data - the just looked for clear changes within the data set
And their conclusions actually state that they cannot tell the parameters of the decay and can only tell there is a correlation
The finding described in this paper reveals that there exists a link between space weather (i.e. GMA and CRA) and the sensors’ responses inside the (and thanks to) the MFC. It is an open question why this interaction exists and what the underlying physical mechanism is. Additional investigations are needed to measure additional physical parameters related to the measurement setup as well as factors from the environment.
Heck they even admitted that the rates fluctuated almost randomly and tried to account for that
last paragraph of materials and methods
Regarding the statistical test, there is a conceptual problem with the statistical testing of time-series correlations: it works only if there are not strong transients in the data. Since some of our data have such transients (for example, see Fig. 6a,b) the test indicates no correlation but in fact there is a clearly visible correlation. A statistically significant correlation between two time-series is therefore a sufficient but not necessary condition for the existence of a real correlation when the data are complex and nonlinear
and second paragraph of results and discussion even describes how the actual decay rates don't matter - what matters is the change
Later on, a description of the observed circumstances under which the correlations take place is also given. This refers to a description of the radioactive source used (whenever necessary), and of the state (and evolution) of the registered decay (or background) counts (in cpm), or the capacitance values. It may comprise a description of the state of the analyzed values relative to their initial values (outside the box, or just after its introduction in the inside), or of their subsequent variations and tendency along the analyzed period, i.e., how the decay rates or the capacitance evolve. As presented in1, those values can be higher, lower, or be the same compared to the initial values outside the cage (it should to be stressed that this aspect will be checked again in the next experiments, but in any case, the relevant fact is that the measures showed significant variations during the observation periods). Besides, they can have an increasing or decreasing trend, and/or show oscillating values, some of which may in turn differ significantly from each other.
But screw those whimps, we have a conclusion we want and we demand it
So if the only measure of truth is your own refusal to admit you were wrong and inability to look at facts and reason i will adimit that if all the facts above are completely ignored then yes a retraction would be warranted. Cause we math wiz's and we just multiply 5 days worth of variation by a million days to know what it's like on half life. it's that easy guies -
Of course certain attitudes are not amiable to satisfaction. They get angry when it is pointed out to them that they are wrong and shown why. They respond with condescension rather than by looking at facts to learn and grow. Thus you are all hereby blocked. Because i don't have the energy to argue nonsense for eternity
submitted by vivek_david_law to DebateEvolution [link] [comments]


2020.09.16 23:35 MeridianHilltop The new Hamlet sub needs a name (and mods and rules)

A few days ago, I made a post here calling for a new Hamlet subreddit devoted to “serious scholarship” on the hundred of subtopics within the play, “a place dedicated to deciphering all of the elements“ and “minutiae.”
> My affection for Hamlet quotations in pop culture rivals my desire to breathe.
Among those subtopics, I’d like to include - Shakespeare’s revisions to the original story, how that adds to the psychological texture of the play - Why Hamlet seems like a different person after he returns from England & failed assassination attempt - Medical knowledge and diagnoses during the Elizabethan era & whether they are applicable to Hamlet & other characters - Modern correlations or equivalencies to Elizabethan diagnoses - Shakespeare’s familiarity with medical knowledge - BIGGIE: Is he faking, insane, or a little bit of both? - Favorite versions or actors - movies or live performances - Best wordplay - Evidence that Hamlet and Ophelia definitely hooked up - Some issues can be borrowed from Michael Neill’s “Hamlet: A Modern Perspective” - “Even the major “facts” of the play—the status of the Ghost, or the real nature of Hamlet’s “madness”—are seen very differently at different times.”
The sub Hamlet has one mod, and there hasn’t had a post in over a year, and every post is archived. It has 284 members, and though if there are some interesting questions, most posts are students asking for help with homework.
There’s also HamletMemes, which promises “quality memes about Shakespeare’s biggest memelord, Prince Hamlet.” Two mods, 104 members.
Another sub is HamletShitposts, described as a “shitposting for a school project.” Seems a lot like HamletMemes. One mod, 55 members.
What should we call our new place? HamletScholarship? HamletForReal? HamletStans? HamletButSeriously?
Who else wants to be a mod with me?
What about rules? I think we should require a citation (even if it’s just author, book (or article and journal). If the topic is based on a gut feeling, the lines should be included.
I want to avoid homework questions. This sub has a decent rule about that we can borrow.
Yay for this & all of you who encouraged the idea.
Update: We’ve started the process of taking over the original Hamlet. (Fun fact: Prince Hamlet was born on the day that King Hamlet killed King Fortinbras, leaving the uncle of Prince Fortinbras to run the kingdom. Prince Fortinbras is on his way to battle with Denmark & King Claudius, uncle of Prince Hamlet, we learn with them opening lines). Looks like we stand a good chance of taking over the other sub.
We are working on a description, and we plan to use a lot of the rules of this sub, but I think we’re going to a rule about a shortened citation requirement or at least a quotation of the lines.
If anyone is interested in being a mod, or suggesting rules, post them below. Same with proposed topics— those ideas you can’t stop reconsidering.
submitted by MeridianHilltop to shakespeare [link] [comments]


2020.09.16 21:15 Oncefa2 Women could, and did, own property and have rights throughout most of history. The idea that women were "second class citizens" compared to men is a gross mischaracterization, the origins of which have effectively been debunked.

There is a lot of misinformation about the supposed "historical oppression" of women. While I don't deny that there were some unequal gender norms and practices (which usually went both ways), a lot of the claims around this topic are simply not true.
Most of these exaggerated claims can be traced back to a single source authored by a man named Sir William Blackstone who lived in England during the 1700s. He wrote about the system of coverture in Europe, which was a form of marriage practiced at the time.
Pretty much everything he wrote on this topic has since been debunked, and even he admitted that what he wrote wasn't true at the time he wrote it (which was in what he saw as "enlightened times" compared to a previous period in history that he thought he was writing about). The mythology inspired by his writings has nevertheless taken on a life of it's own.
Examples include the idea that women were treated like property, didn't have rights, and could be legally beaten by their husbands.
Many modern day academics even believe these things. They also tend to blindly cite each other in a kind of "echo chamber" without checking their sources. Which means that many otherwise credible looking sources on this topic have citation chains that either don't go anywhere, or eventually go back to the debunked claims made by Blackstone.
One academic paper formally analyzed those citation trails and was able to prove this in an objective manner:
George, M. J. (2007). The "Great Taboo" and the Role of Patriarchy in Husband and Wife Abuse. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1855/f217b082603d0ab37ea80c4741fceb8a4a23.pdf
He was looking specifically at the claim that wife beating used to be legal. And besides providing plenty of evidence that it wasn't, he also called out these "Blackstone inspired papers" that were claiming it was true.
Another source from 1946 written by a female historian and suffragette dove into the history of some of these claims and discovered pretty much the same thing. She was upset that women's accomplishments in history were being downplayed by supposed "women's advocates" because they were hell-bent on proving that women were oppressed.
She went on to write an entire book about women's accomplishments in history in order to disprove this idea.
Here is one excerpt from her book where she tackles the fact that Blackstone was pretty much their only "source" that women were oppressed in history.
When did this idea originate? By whom was it originated? In what circumstances was it formulated? Why did it obtain such an empire over human minds? In short, what is its real nature and origin?
If one works backward in history hunting for the origin of this idea, one encounters, near the middle of the nineteenth century, two illuminating facts: (1) the idea was first given its most complete and categorical form by American women who were in rebellion against what they regarded as restraints on their liberty; (2) the authority whom they most commonly cited in support of systematic presentations of the idea was Sir William Blackstone, author of Commentaries on the Laws of England – the laws of the mother country adopted in part by her offspring in the new world (see below, Chapter V). The first volume of this work appeared in 1765 and the passage from that volume which was used with unfailing reiteration by insurgent women in America was taken from Blackstone’s chapter entitled “Of Husband and Wife.”
And another except:
Since such were the rights of women in Equity as things stood in 1836, fortified by a long line of precedents stretching back through the centuries, it seems perfectly plain that the dogma of woman’s complete historic subjection to man must be rated as one of the most fantastic myths ever created by the human mind.
(Emphasis added)
Beard, Mary. (1946). Woman as a Force in History. Macmillan, New York.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm
I included a list of bullet points below which are mainly about Medieval Europe, although some can be traced back to Roman times. At least one source containing evidence about divorced wives goes back to 597 CE. And it's also true that women have owned property and been allowed to divorce as far back as ancient Egypt.
A short summary about how men and women are treated in Arabic societies can be found here:
https://www.reddit.com/MensRights/comments/c9tsso/one_of_my_favourite_comments_from_girlwriteswhat/
And some more information about female power structures that often get ignored by researchers can be found here:
https://www.reddit.com/MensRights/comments/g3l1d1/public_and_private_politics_women_in_the_middle/
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1974.1.3.02a00100
Many people will swear up and down that woman had fewer rights not just in Arabic cultures, but also in Europe, and will point to the legal concept of coverture (as interpreted by Blackstone) to prove that.
Not only is this view factually wrong, but I think it does a great disservice to the real world accomplishments of women in history that are often brushed aside to peddle this agenda.
So to summarize:
Some more information can be found in this post by u/problem_redditor:
https://www.reddit.com/MensRights/comments/flzf5v/married_women_equity_jurisprudence_and_thei
A few extra sources:
Van Creveld, M. (2013). The privileged sex. DLVC Enterprises.
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Privileged_Sex.html?id=4szznAEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description
Rogers, S. C. (1975). female forms of power and the myth of male dominance: a model of female/male interaction in peasant society. American Ethnologist, 2(4), 727-756.
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1975.2.4.02a00090
Bailey, J. (2002). Favoured or oppressed? Married women, property and ‘coverture’ in England, 1660–1800. Continuity and Change, 17(3), 351-372.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:2e88e3f6-b270-4228-b930-9237c00e739f/download_file?file_format=application/pdf&safe_filename=Item.pdf&type_of_work=Journal%20article
Griffiths, F. J. (2013). women and reform in the central middle ages. In The Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medieval Europe (p. 447). Oxford University Press.
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199582174.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199582174-e-036
Bax, E. B. (1896). The Legal Subjection of Men. Twentieth Century Press.
Second edition: https://archive.org/details/legalsubjection00baxgoog/
George, M. J. (2007). The "Great Taboo" and the Role of Patriarchy in Husband and Wife Abuse. International Journal of Men's Health, 6(1).
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1855/f217b082603d0ab37ea80c4741fceb8a4a23.pdf
"“Only the Instrument of the Law”: Baltimore’s Whipping Post"
https://www.mdhs.org/underbelly/2013/10/03/only-the-instrument-of-the-law-baltimores-whipping-post/
ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OPPOSED TO THE EXTENSION OF SUFFRAGE TO WOMEN: WOMAN’S PROTEST AGAINST WOMAN SUFFRAGE TO MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE, 1909.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/powetext12/antisuffrageassoc.pdf
Abbott, Lyman. (1903). "Why Women Do Not Wish the Suffrage". The Atlantic
https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/306616/
Story, J. (1877). Commentaries on equity Jurisprudence: As administered in England and America (Vol. 2). Little, Brown.
https://books.google.com.my/books?id=AfFBAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Spence, G. (1850). The Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery: Comprising Its Rise, Progress and Final Establishment; to which is Prefixed, with a View to the Elucidation of the Main Subject, a Concise Account of the Leading Doctrines of the Common Law in Regard to Civil Rights; with an Attempt to Trace Them to Their Sources; and in which the Various Alterations Made by the Legislature Down to the Present Day are Noticed (Vol. 2). Lea and Blanchard.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=31RDAAAAcAAJ&lpg=PA515&dq=separate%20estate%20chancery&pg=PA515#v=onepage&q&f=false
Beard, Mary. (1946). Woman as a Force in History. Macmillan, New York.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/woman-force/index.htm
Tait, A. A. (2014). The Beginning of the End of Coverture: A Reappraisal of the Married Woman's Separate Estate. Yale JL & Feminism, 26, 165.
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2133&context=law-faculty-publications
Burnette, J. (2008). Gender, work and wages in industrial revolution Britain. Cambridge University Press.
https://books.google.com/books?id=gJEWvlqlEoIC&lpg=PA16&ots=eEpV4025qc&dq=info%3AVIfWu5LLPikJ%3Ascholar.google.com%2F&lr&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false
submitted by Oncefa2 to MensRights [link] [comments]


2020.09.16 19:18 ThreeStarDave [HELP] Responsive and layout-configurable theme

One of my sites (https://wist.info) needs a mobile-friendly / responsive theme. However, I need to be able to go in and extensively tweak the post layout. The nature of my blog (quotations) means I'm purposing some of the post data a little differently from the normal blog -- using the Title for citations, the Category for author (and using Category Description heavily), specially treating the More text, etc.
That means, in turn, changing how the fields display in a decided non-normal fashion/order (text, category description, category photo, title, link from a custom field, more text, etc.). E.g.,

Sample post layout
While it would be lovely if such a theme was configurable through some UI, I don't expect it. I do know enough PHP to go in and do some manual tweaking in the standard theme loop files to make this work (as I've done in my current layout, based on Twenty Ten, as well as in my Atom and RSS feeds). But most of the themes these days, esp. responsive ones, seem to bury the actual layout deep in called functions that exceed my ability to figure out how to modify. I need a theme that will be responsive (or otherwise mobile-friendly) but also let me straightforwardly modify the layout of the fields being displayed.
I was previously using (a tweaked version of) JetPack's mobile theme to handle this, but that's no longer available. Meanwhile, Google keeps poking me that my site is no longer mobile-friendly, something that, even SEO aside, I'd like to resolve.
I'm happy to spend money for this, if need be. Anyone have any ideas?
submitted by ThreeStarDave to Wordpress_Themes [link] [comments]


2020.09.16 01:59 JSDrey Critique of Judgment citation question

Hey, I'm wondering if anyone can give me an Akademie citation for a passage in the Critique of Judgment? Kant writes that:
There is a purposive striving of nature which makes us receptive to higher purposes than nature itself can provide...
The citation I'm seeing for this is "KdU B394/, A390". My understanding is that the A/B divisions pertain to the first critique, so I'm baffled by this citation and cannot find it. Thanks.
submitted by JSDrey to askphilosophy [link] [comments]


2020.09.15 23:29 Rumored17 Refutations for Every Main Pro-Pit Argument

1."It's all how you raise them."

And more:
• ⁠Lockwood, R. A. N. D. A. L. L. (2016). Ethology, ecology and epidemiology of canine aggression. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour & Interactions with People,, 160-181.
• ⁠Abrantes, R., Site, A., Camp, S., Diving, F. A. Q., Camp, G. P., Pages, M., ... & User, C. C. (2016). Aggressive Behavior—Inheritance and Environment.
• ⁠van den Berg, L. I. N. D. A. (2016). Genetics of dog behavior. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People, 5, 69.
• ⁠O'Neill, D. G., & Packer, R. M. (2016). The First Canine Behavior and Genetics Conference: Summary and recommendations for future directions in canine behavioral science. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 16, 6-12.
• ⁠Sørensen, M. (2016). Breeding aggression: Review of recent literature concerning the influence of genes on aggressive behaviour (Doctoral dissertation).
• ⁠Schilder, M. B., van der Borg, J. A., & Vinke, C. M. (2019). Intraspecific killing in dogs: predation behavior or aggression? A study of aggressors, victims, possible causes and motivations. Journal of Veterinary Behavior.
These studies all show that genetics play a large role in dog behavior. Most are related to Pit Bulls or aggression, but some just show that there are noticeable differences between dog breeds based on their breed. Here are some anecdotal sources to support the claims that Pit Bulls are born with a tendency to be aggressive:
In addition, "it's all how you raise them" goes against the very existence of dog breeds. If someone is arguing this, they are saying a Labrador Retriever will have the same instincts as a Border Collie, which will have the same instincts as a Doberman, which will have the same instincts as a Great Pyrenees, which will have the same instincts as a Dachshund, etc. This is observably and demonstrably false. Humans created different dog breeds with different temperaments and physical and behavioral traits through selective breeding. This is why dog breeds exist, this is why breed standards exist, this is why people can reasonably and accurately predict how a dog will act based on breed. Are there exceptions? Of course. However, that is just what they are- exceptions. Different dog breeds have different traits and tendencies dependent on what they were selectively bred for.

2. "Chihuahuas are more aggressive."

This is just a disingenuous attempt to derail the conversation. Even if Chihuahuas are more aggressive, they don't/can't kill people. If Chihuahuas were as large as Pit Bulls, perhaps this would be a conversation worth having- seeing as this is not the case, there is no argument to be had here.
I try to emphasize that the issue with Pits is how many people and pets they kill. Pit Bulls are not just biting people- they are killing, severely maiming, and mauling people. There is a huge difference, and it is important to recognize many Pit fanatics will try to lump in all dog bites with the maulings Pit Bulls are responsible for. They are not the same. This is similar to the "Labs bite more" argument- again, we are not just talking about bites. Keep the discussion focused on severe maulings, maimings, and deaths, because that is what BSL targets.
From 1982-2020 no Chihuahua has ever killed anyone. This source breaks down attacks by breed, child or adult victim, and death or maiming.

3. "There's no such thing as a Pit Bull." and "Pit Bulls can't be identified."

A good way to avoid even getting to this apologist bingo point is by using the phrasing "Pit Bull type dogs" as opposed to Pit Bulls. However, you can also just explain that "Pit Bull" is an umbrella term for four closely related dog breeds- the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and the American Bully. The American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier are actually so similar they can be dual registered as an AmStaff with the AKC and a APBT with the UKC. Until recently, most dog DNA tests would not even separate AmStaff from APBT due to the extreme similarities. This is also just another deflection technique- everyone knows what someone means by "Pit Bull" just as everyone knows what someone means by "Golden Retriever." This is what "pit bull" means legally.
Now, because "Pit Bull" does refer to 4 dog breeds rather than one, Pit apologists will often cry "well of course 4 dog breeds will kill more people!" but keep in mind that these 4 dog breeds have killed more people than 300+ other dog breeds combined. The Pit Bull umbrella kills more people than every other group or type of dogs and more than every other dog breed combined.
Regarding Pit Bulls being unidentifiable:
Pit Bulls have just as many obvious identifying characteristics as other dog breeds. There is no reason to believe Pit Bulls suffer from misidentification more than other dog breeds. There is reason to believe Pit Bulls are intentionally mislabeled as other breeds when in shelters, however. In addition, when discussing fatal Pit Bull attacks specifically, more often than not there are photos of the Pit Bulls involved so anyone can verify for themselves if they were Pit Bull type dogs. Genetic testing is not required for breed identification- anyone who argues this is being disingenuous. Another point is that we are constantly inundated with Pro-Pit propaganda; there is simply no way we can have Pixar shorts such as Kitbull and a new Dodo video every week about Pit Bulls and still be expected to believe the average person cannot visually identify a Pit Bull.

4. Pits are no more dangerous than other dogs.

The statistics also support our side here- Pit Bulls have killed more people than all other dog breeds combined. Pit Bulls are not the largest, nor the strongest dogs out there. They do not have the strongest bite force. They are more deadly than other dog breeds because humans selectively bred them to be as deadly as possible. They are deadly due to the nature of their attacks and the behavioral traits they display when attacking such as gameness and a bite style mentioned in some of these studies, along with their physical traits.

5. "It used to be Dobermans, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds that people wanted to ban!"

Pit Bulls have killed more people than those three breeds ever did, even at the height of their popularity, even combined. There is also no evidence supporting this claim, and in fact, quite a lot of evidence showing it's completely false.
It is important to note as well that none of these breeds have an entire lobby supporting them. They do not have communities dedicated to attack victim harassment, misinformation, and lies, unlike the Pit Bull has. Something interesting to consider is the bias online when looking at these breeds and other restricted breeds vs pages about Pit Bulls. Wikipedia in particular is very obviously being manipulated by Pit Bull fanatics.
None of this manipulation is occurring on the pages for Dobermans, Rottweilers, or German Shepherds. These three breeds never reached anywhere close to the level of suffering and carnage Pit Bulls are responsible for. There has never been a concerted effort to ban these breeds, although some are targeted by apartment restrictions due to insurance issues. There is also no lobby supporting the misinformation and misrepresentation of these breeds.

6. "Dogsbite.org is biased and unreliable."

Dogsbite is completely open and transparent about their data collection strategies. They provide identification photographs and have all of their citations publicly listed. Citations and Photographs
Here is a challenge I like to give to people who claim Dogsbite is unreliable, although I have yet to receive a legitimate response:
Have you actually looked into dogsbite.org yourself? You do know that dogsbite tracks every fatal dog attack, regardless if it's a Pit or not? It appears anti-Pit because most fatal dog attacks are done by Pits. They're not only posting Pit attacks- there are just so many more fatal Pit attacks than other breeds it appears they are.
Here's a proposal for you:
Go to 2020 and late 2019, a time frame for which news reports are still abundantly available all over the internet, and fact-check ANY FOUR DOG-BITE FATALITIES OF YOUR CHOOSING, two where the killer dogs are said to be pit/mixes, and two cases where the killer dogs are not said to be pit/mixes:
  1. Did DogsBite accurately name the person killed?
  2. Did DogsBite accurately summarize the circumstances in which the person was killed?
  3. Did DogsBite accurately identify the breed(s) of the killer dog(s)?
  4. Did DogsBite provide a photo or photos of the killer dog(s) so you can judge for yourself what type of dog(s) you think did the killing?
DogsBite and Wikipedia both provide links to news stories about these fatal attacks. If you don't want to use the news links provided by DogsBite, then use the ones on Wikipedia that cover the same stories. DogsBite also provides links to autopsy reports, police reports and 911 calls, so you can compare these primary sources with the summaries on the DogsBite page and assess whether those summaries are accurate.

7. "Human aggressive Pit Bulls were culled!"

This is a myth. While human aggression was not something that was typically selectively bred for it is a myth that most human aggressive Pits were culled. That was not the case, and it still is not the case today. One look at shelter descriptions of Pits with bite histories and severe aggression issues shows these dogs are not being euthanized, and there are several instances of Pit Bulls who have killed people being bred.
There's no evidence whatsoever that dog fighters routinely destroyed human-aggressive dogs and refused to breed them. u/NorthTwoZero wrote at length about why it's a myth here, and this blogger put together a documented list of famously human-aggressive fighting dogs who not only weren't "culled" but were bred so often that they produced over 1,200 known, registered offspring:
"The man-biters were culled and the pit bulls were not bred for human aggression myths were created from thin air, complete fabrications. There is not a sliver of truth in the myth that dogmen culled man-biters. Not only weren't human aggressive pit fighters NOT culled, but a talented man-biter was heavily bred, his stud services were in high demand and the stud fees commanded a premium. The progeny of man-biters are still sought out long after he or she has passed away. This Italian game-dog website lists their choice for the Best Ever fighting dogs, three of the five are known man-biters and the other two trace their origins to the others on their "Best" list. Some famous man-biters have their own facebook fan pages. If you happen to be a 10x winner with 3 kills and scratching on the carcass, people tend to overlook a little thing like the danger she poses to people and she is also likely to be nominated for the cover of this month's International Sporting Dog Journal. Some famous man-biters not only have a facebook fan page, they have their own promotional merchandise too."

8. "Pit Bulls were nanny dogs!" or "Pit Bulls were America's dog!"

First, I usually ask questions that demonstrate out how absurd that claim is. What is a nanny dog? What duties does a nanny dog perform? Why would a dog type be called a "Pit Bull" if it nannied? Where does the name "Pit Bull" come from? Why is it necessary for Pits to have such large, gaping mouths and extremely muscular bodies if they were nannies? Then here is some actual info:
The first appearance of the term "Nanny Dog" dates from a 1971 NYT interview with the then president of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America, Lillian Rant, who called Staffordshire Bull Terriers "nursemaid dogs" for no apparent reason (other than to attempt to re-brand fighting dogs as family pets).
BAD RAP shared a link.
It's Dog Bite Prevention Week. Did you know that there was never such thing as a 'Nanny's Dog'? This term was a recent invention created to describe the myriad of vintage photos of children enjoying their family pit bulls (see link for details about vintage photos). While the intention behind the term was innocent, using it may mislead parents into being careless with their children around their family dog - A recipe for dog bites!
Regarding Pits being "America's dog": Bronwen Dickey (author of incredibly biased and unscientific book "Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon") and other pit bull advocates argue that pit bulls were historically beloved in the U.S. until the dogs became associated with urban people of color in the 1970s, so Pit Bull stigma is really about being racist toward black and brown people.
But pit bulls were not historically beloved in the U.S. nor were they popularly regarded as a positive symbol of plucky can-do spirit. Joseph Colby, in his lifetime one of the world's leading authorities on the Pit Bull Terrier, wrote in 1936 that "The general public is under the impression that this breed is carnivorous, vicious, and, fed on a diet of raw meat, will devour a human being" and "When the pit bull terrier was introduced into America, he was more commonly found to be owned by prize fighters, saloon keepers and habitues, sporting men and the like. From the start the breed earned an unjust reputation due to his fighting ability and the character of the owner. To this day he is still trying to live down an unjust and undeserved reputation."
Sometimes Pit people will randomly mention how Sergeant Stubby, a decorated war hero dog, was a Pit Bull. He was not. Primary (contemporary) sources most often describe Stubby as a Boston Terrier or Boston Terrier mix (this breed was sometimes called the Boston Bulldog). He is sometimes said to be a Bull Terrier (the egghead dogs) mix but he obviously resembles a Boston Terrier significantly more than a Bull Terrier. Stubby is never said to be a Pit Bull in primary sources.

9. "Pit Bulls scored 2nd highest on temperament tests and better than most family dog breeds!"

This is always referring to the ATTS, or the American Temperament Testing Society. It is refuted thoroughly in the BanPitBulls FAQ, but this is what I usually say as well:
The test was developed to test working dogs, specifically dogs meant for schutzhund work. It has never been, nor ever purported to be about testing companion animals or a breed's suitability as family pets. Scoring actually favors dogs that bite, in some cases. Breed specific temperament, aggression, and each dog's training is taken into account when scoring. This means that if a relatively untrained Lab bites a "threatening stranger" it will score far lower than a German Shepherd that bites a "threatening stranger."
According to the ATTS itself, "95% of dogs who fail do so because they lack confidence" NOT because they bite. Dogs that exhibit avoidance behaviors will fail. Dogs that bite do not automatically fail.
The ATTS also states that comparing scores with other dogs means nothing- the pass/fail rates cannot be compared. Different dog breeds that behave the same exact way on the test will get hugely different scores due to the fact they take inherent breed tendencies into consideration.
The test is not designed to test for breed aggression, according to the ATTS website. It is more of a test of bravery for individual dogs. Timid dogs will always fail. Dogs that bite will not always fail.
If anything, you could argue that the reason Pits have a high passing rate is because they bite or show aggression, although that is speculation and not proven. Either way though- the test does not test breed aggression, passing rates cannot be compared, and the test absolutely does not test for suitability as a family pet.
More info here: What the ATTS is really showing.
It is also worth mentioning that the only dogs that participate in the ATTS testing are dogs brought in by their owners- it is not a random sample or scientific study of any kind. Considering the evidence showing the existence of an actual Pit Bull lobby, it would not be a reach to say these results have been intentionally manipulated (if they did even matter, which they don't).
Also, a controlled temperament test found that 13 percent, or one out of seven, pit bulls tried to bite or attack during a one hour test simulating a neighborhood walk. One out of seven pit bulls tried to bite in the span of just one hour compared to only one out of 70 golden retrievers. Note that this study was funded and authored by anti-breed ban activists: They found "no significant difference" between breeds when the definition of aggression was watered down to include even whining or crying. But pay close attention to Table 5 on page 138: out of all the breeds tested, pit bulls were markedly the worst when it came to the percentage of dogs that reached a more serious level of aggression.

10. "It's racism for dogs!"

Humans are not dogs, and dog breeds are not analogous to human races.
In addition, one cannot compare a race of people to a breed of dogs for a multitude of reasons. Dog breeds were selectively, intentionally bred for specific characteristics and traits by human beings. Humans created dog breeds based on what physical and behavioral traits we wanted them to have. (Spaniels for flushing, retrievers for fetching prey/birds without damage, livestock guardian dogs such as Great Pyrenees for protecting livestock, Huskies for endurance and energy, Pointers for pointing, etc. Different dog breeds have different behavioral tendencies because humans selectively bred them to have those tendencies). Dogs also do not suffer from cultural differences, institutionalized racism, or socioeconomic disparities. Humans are also not as heavily influenced by our instincts as dogs are. Dogs behave based on their instincts and training. Humans behave mainly on their "training." Humans also have far more complex thought processes and the ability to make complex decisions. Dogs do not. You could go on and on but that is the basic overview there- dogs were selectively bred and rely mainly on their instincts. Humans were not selectively bred and are capable of making complex and rational decisions.
Post continued in the comments due to the character limit.
submitted by Rumored17 to BanPitBulls [link] [comments]


2020.09.15 20:48 Icries4frenchfries Seeking advice on grad school. Low GPA but good NLP publications.

I have a 7.85/10 GPA from a Tier 2 college in India (2020 graduate). However I have put considerable amount of time in doing NLP projects and internships. I have 2 ACL Papers, 1 NAACL Paper, 1 ACM HyperText Paper, and 1 Interspeech paper. I am the first author in all of these. Apart from this I also have 2 US patents filed with the company I interned with. These patents are also in the domain of Natural Language Processing. My GRE score is 158V 167Q. I was also a member of the only undergraduate student team in India to build a driverless car. I'll have strong LORs from professors who know me personally. Currently I'm working as a Data Scientist in a Fortune 10 company as part of their applied NLP Research Team. My current h-index is 3 with 18 citations.
Do I stand a decent chance towards getting into CMU's LTI for a Masters Degree ? I feel like my GPA is going to be a burden for me and all this effort may go to waste.
submitted by Icries4frenchfries to LanguageTechnology [link] [comments]


2020.09.15 12:23 mazharulemon Causes of Cancer

Causes of Cancer
Cancer is a malady brought about by hereditary changes prompting uncontrolled cell development and tumor arrangement. The essential reason for irregular (non-familial) tumors is DNA damage[citation needed] and genomic instability.[1] A minority of malignancies are because of acquired hereditary mutations.[2] Most diseases are identified with natural, way of life or conduct exposures.[3] Cancer is commonly not infectious in people, however, it tends to be brought about by oncoviruses and disease microscopic organisms. The expression "ecological", as utilized by malignant growth analysts, alludes to everything outside the body that interfaces with humans.[4] the earth isn't restricted to the biophysical condition (for example presentation to elements, for example, air contamination or daylight), yet additionally incorporates a way of life and conduct factors.[5]
https://preview.redd.it/oz4j9jynfan51.jpg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=250b4ae0c23c951cb638a70537c6b2e766ff6915

More than 33% of malignant growth passings around the world (and around 75–80% in the United States) are possibly avoidable by lessening presentation to known factors.[6][7] Common natural factors that add to disease demise incorporate introduction to various substance and physical specialists (tobacco use represents 25–30% of malignancy passings), ecological toxins, diet and weight (30–35%), contaminations (15–20%), and radiation (both ionizing and non-ionizing, up to 10%).[8] These components demonstration, in any event halfway, by adjusting the capacity of qualities inside cells.[9] Typically numerous such hereditary changes are required before disease develops.[9] Aging has been over and over and reliably viewed as a significant viewpoint to consider while assessing the danger factors for the advancement of specific tumors. Numerous atomic and cell changes associated with the improvement of disease collect during the maturing cycle and inevitably show as cancer.[10]
submitted by mazharulemon to u/mazharulemon [link] [comments]


2020.09.15 12:18 3lectricboogal00 Old God personality comparisons and variations on corruption [Lore Discussion - LONG POST]

(Originally posted on main wow subreddit but it was getting downvoted so I felt like maybe I posted in the wrong neighborhood)
I've been trying to put together a list of all the differences and similarities between each Old God we've encountered on Azeroth. Their size and visual design are things that people discuss all the time but I'm really more interested in their personalities or just generally how they function. There might have been other posts about this but I haven't been able to find them.
I want to compile a list of differences between each of the Old Gods and determine;
A) Personality
B) Method of influence (i.e. the ways that they might try to deplete a person's sanity)
C) Corruption indicators (i.e. how their corruption is represented in someone or something that they have infected)

Y'SHAARJ

Personality: Indeterminate - Unpredictable?
Apparently Y'shaarj is the largest and most powerful but there are only snippets of detail on how he differs from the others. He seems to represent some variation of the seven deadly sins and I can't really back this up but it appears that he is interested in encouraging the exploration of personal vices or amplifying the negative 'sinful' feelings that are already present in mortals. We see very little of the Old God in his natural form or even an avatar of his 'whole' self - seeing as he was killed and split apart before we could learn anything about him.
On Gamepedia : (Y'shaarj) is said to have inhaled courage and breathed fear. When it died, its last, terrible breath manifested as the seven prime sha Anger, Hatred, Violence, Fear, Doubt, Despair and Pride.
I would be interested to hear any other takes on what he might have been like to interact with. All we really have to go on is our interactions with the sha so I can only assume that he was somewhat volatile - switching frequently between a variety of moods. He might have been the most emotional Old God with each of his heads offering a unique mood.
Method of Influence: Bolstering sins/wide emotional range
I would say that his most prominent feature is the exploitation of existing emotions and the amplification of them to such an extreme that the victim is rendered insane.
While other Old Gods seem more interested in a specific emotion, Y'shaarj invests in a wider range of seven distinct emotional concepts (all probably correlating to his seven heads). I believe it is possible that Y'shaarj's highly diverse emotional manipulation is directly linked to his known status as the most powerful Old God. Obviously, his size would be a factor there but I think being able to interfere with a diverse range of emotion could enhance his overall power (?)
For example, these whispers can be heard emitting from Xal'atoh - a weapon which drops from Garrosh Hellscream after he has been overtaken by Y'shaarj's corruption:
Corruption: Sha contagion
His corruption is quite clearly represented by the 'Sha' contagion that we've seen in many characters throughout the Mists of Pandaria expansion. The most prominent example is probably Garrosh Hellscream in Siege of Orgrimmar (https://i.imgur.com/z619uu5l.jpg)
Sha corruption varies between black and white monochrome or bright and colorful - i.e. how it appears in the above image. It has the potential to cover surfaces in much the same manner as it does with people. Anywhere that you find sha, you will probably find black and white patches bleeding white mist.
I might've missed something but that's about all I can think of.

YOGG-SARON

Personality: Arrogance/Violence
Possibly the loudest and most violent of the four known Old Gods, Yogg-Saron appears to exemplify arrogance and excessive egomania. Most of the other Gods have 2-3 different titles (i.e. God of the Deep for N'zoth and God of Seven Heads for Y'shaarj) but Yogg-Saron has at least 7 that we have heard in-game.
(The Lucid Dream, The Beast with a Thousand Maws, The Prime Evil, The Beast, The Fiend of a Thousand Faces, The God of Death, That Which Must Not Be Named).
The three visions that he shows us during his encounter in the Ulduar raid seem to be a blatant boast regarding his influence in Azeroth's past. Many have speculated that he had a hand in the events that he portrays and I'm not inclined to disagree but the whole thing seems like a performance - just another way for him to show us how powerful and important he is.
He often undertakes similar behind-the-scenes manipulation to the other Old Gods (i.e. muddling the mind of Titan Keeper Loken) but when he is exposed, he seems to abandon all notion of deception and revel in his own power with voice lines like :
Biggest ego in the black empire.
Method of Influence: FeaHate?
His influence would appear somewhat intangible at first glance and a little convoluted to unpack. Most of the whispers that you hear in Saronite mines indicate that Yogg-Saron relies primarily on drilling fear into his victims but also inspiring hatred and a desire for violence. Here are a few examples of things that he will say to you.
In addition, during his boss encounter he says the following through Sara:
Yeah, it's a bit of a flimsy theory but Yogg-Saron doesn't always operate with consistency. Y'shaarj relied on a wide variety of emotional manipulation but there was a pattern to it and one that directly correlated to his 'seven sins, seven heads' motif.
Yogg-Saron's methods don't have much to tie them together aside from the fact that he often initiates huge changes in the world that garner a lot of attention (turning Loken against the Titan Keepers, corrupting Andrassil, seeding the Emerald Nightmare, creating the curse of flesh and possibly interfering with several other significant historical events across Azeroth - all represented in the visions he provides during his boss encounter)
He also has a tendency to create deceptive visions like Sara in Ulduar or an image of Sif to deceive Loken. Overall I'd say his manipulations are the loudest and most extravagant.
Corruption: Not visible/Heightened Aggression?/Saronite?
Visual indicators of Yogg-Saron's corruption seem somewhat non-existent and I don't believe that he had any specific mortal followers aside from those that surround General Vezax in the Descent into Madness (these appear to be the same Twilight's Hammer cultists that we see across Azeroth) and those that have succumbed to Saronite poisoning.
Yogg-Saron's blood was known to induce madness and heightened aggression but not in the undead - particularly the Scourge. I don't believe this was ever fully explained but it is very interesting. Regardless, those that succumb to Saronite poisoning don't exhibit any unique visual manifestations that I could find.
The saronite miners that we discover across Northrend are similarly unaffected in any visual way by his corruption but I believe it is possible that Yogg-Saron's influence only manifests in heightened aggression and paranoia. You can read some of their voice lines here, I'm still not really sure how to draw a conclusion from these.
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Saronite_Mine_Slave
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Deranged_Explorer
I wish I had something more concrete to say about Yogg's corruption but I don't think Blizzard was interested in creating visual effects for Old God corruption until Y'shaarj showed up in Pandaria. I'm trying not to get too meta with it but I can't find an in-lore reason for a big loud boy like Yogg-Saron to not announce his presence in those that he corrupts.

C'THUN

Personality: Quiet & Emotionless
C'thun was obviously smaller than Y'shaarj and a little smaller than Yogg-Saron (his domain looks kinda smaller than N'Zoth's too if you look at the Chronicle map) but again, physical appearance is only really relevant to me in regard to his personality and function. In this case, I think C'thun's size could easily correlate to him being represented as some sort of twist on a 'middle child' - frequently underrepresented and overlooked in comparison to some of the others. C'thun has even less detail than Y'shaarj when it comes to his traits and methods but I think we can actually draw quite a lot from his whispers alone. It should be noted that he speaks very little in comparison to the others - in a quiet, monotone voice and directly to the player themselves rather than in an open broadcast (unless I'm remembering that wrong).
The arrogance of Yogg-Saron exemplifies a massive contrast in their individual hubris. C'thun seems much more emotionless and effortlessly calm at all times, never really speaking about himself or with any sense of self-importance - which all 3 other Old Gods contrast against.
In Ahn Qiraj we can hear the following from C'thun himself:
He also has almost no humanoid/mortal followers - only aqir, faceless and corrupt Anubisath. It seems like he has far less interest in mortal races than any other Old God. It may just be as simple as his isolation in Silithus providing little opportunity to figure out how these other races function and how to get into their heads.
Personally, I like to believe that C'thun is more alien to our perception - he does not pretend to think like we do or have the same emotions that we experience. He is far closer to an unfathomable eldritch monstrosity than his brethren and makes little effort to appear differently.
Method of Influence: Despair & Doubt
I think C'thun relies on a much heavier dose of despair than any of the other Old Gods in order to eradicate the sanity of his victims, speaking softly and almost gently to those that wander his domain - whispering doubts into their ear and stoking their fears. His manipulation is almost passive and disinterested - implying that whomever he targets is of no significance whatsoever.
Corruption: Not visible/Very subtle
This aspect of C'thun is very difficult to pin down. Most of his followers are Qiraji, Silithid and Anubisath enslaved by the Qiraji. As far as I can tell, he has no mortal followers unless you include Twilight's Hammer fanatics in Silithus but they show no obvious visual signs of corruption from the Old God himself.
However, I would speculate that due to C'thun's more soft-spoken nature - his corruption may be more subtle and difficult to perceive on the surface. Perhaps only those under his influence can perceive it in others? Could it be similar to the Gift of N'Zoth?
Or could this be another side-effect of C'thun's disinterest in mortal races?

N'ZOTH

Personality: Cunning & Playful
As the smallest of the Azerothian Old Gods, (despite the fact that his domain seems around the same size as C'thun's in Chronicle - but I might just be blind) N'Zoth is frequently referred to as the most deceptively dangerous of all. He likes 'deals' and I would argue that he is the most fond of mortal races. He employs a large number of Faceless and K'thir but he also spends much more time trying to communicate with people on Azeroth. The player is probably the most prominent example but he also made a very direct and memorable pact with Azshara.
His affinity for communication of this nature is perhaps due to his inadequacies in size and strength, trying to form bonds of loyalty far stronger than any form of mind control or physical dominance. Additionally, knowledge of the future is often teased in the form of riddles which I believe is a combined act to amuse himself and entice us into listening for more.
N'Zoth seems the most 'human' of the Old Gods, often engaging in acts of generosity and even affection toward those that follow him. I would wager that this is all fabricated but it's also possible that he does experience some level of connection to his followers. It may only go as far as a sense of ownership but that's still a great deal more than the complete lack of sentiment offered by his kin.
Method of Influence: Hate, Prophecy & Love
N'Zoth offers a unique mixture of manipulation, seemingly fixated on fostering a direct bond between himself and his followers. Through the numerous whispers that we hear in BfA, it is clear that he frequently encourages his victims to trust and love him - denoting them with the term 'Chosen' and bestowing his 'Gifts' upon them.
Yet in addition to this, he also encourages those under his influence to foster hate for others, primarily those that defy him. He emphasizes the idea that only some are worthy of his gift and that everyone else is worthless - an enemy to be vanquished. This ties very easily into the themes of love and devotion that he infuses into his followers. If you do not love him then you must hate him and therefore, you are the enemy.
8.1.5 N'Zoth quotes:
8.3 N'Zoth quotes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBgKrPmYvYw
Corruption: just a lot of eyeballs and tentacles idk
If you've played through BfA content you've likely seen the manifestations of N'Zoth's corruption. On surfaces, he'll produce tentacles, eyes and big nasty stains as we've seen in the corrupted zones of 8.3
But in his followers he manifests quite a variety of changes. The K'thir appear to be some mixture of n'raqi and mortal fused together - and since they appear so similar to the n'raqi, I would assume that they serve all Old Gods. We never saw these creatures until BfA so I think most people associate them with N'Zoth but my guess is that tentacle-faced K'thir are something that any old god could create at will.
The Gift of N'Zoth is a glowing eye bestowed upon those that he deems worthy - and only others carrying the gift can perceive it. N'Zoth may manifest other forms of corruption similar to this but I don't think that it will necessarily be visible at all times - much like the gift that players can wear.

COMMON TIES

Every Old God shares some miscellaneous traits, functions and aspects of corruption that I will briefly summarize here.
At this stage I've spent too much time on this so I'll bring it to a close.
TL;DR
All of these cuddly boys share a lot of similarities but there are so many subtle differences not only in their visual manifestations but in the way that they operate. I could spend hours going deeper and speculating on how the physical appearance of each Old God might indicate further deatils on their personality differences but this is really starting to drag on.
Pretty much everything that I've written here is speculative so I encourage you to drag it through the mud and expose the flaws. I could talk about this stuff all day so I hope somebody actually manages to make it through all of this.
submitted by 3lectricboogal00 to warcraftlore [link] [comments]


2020.09.15 01:32 _riotingpacifist European in r/Europe suggests moving to Germany to get away from "Such as the ultra woke attacking the Enlightenment for example."In terms of ideology, America is becoming more leftist than any place on Earth right nowa section of academia that is ideologically closer to Stalin than to Napoleon

They might have other reasons to move out of America right now. Such as the ultra woke attacking the Enlightenment for example.
Yes, but I'm not talking about past or present policy. In terms of ideology, America is becoming more leftist than any place on Earth right now. Let's just remember that if you go too far to the left you get into Communism and all the good things that come with that. It's also about how you do it. If you are simply a rational progressive, then you get all the beautiful things we have in the EU. If you are literally preaching against the virtue of reason, science and liberalism, you are simply authoritarian.
It's primarily about a section of academia that is ideologically closer to Stalin than to Napoleon that is overtaking society at every level, media, social and journalistic, the arts, teaching institutions, political ones, corporate, financial, everything.
I'm actually from Europe. I'm already here, I don't need to move. And I appreciate how ignorant people are of what's happening in the US. It's much closer to Stalinism and Orwell's 1984 than modern day Europe.
There are people that won't to stop science, don't hold any respect for the simple idea of the "individual" as such, that want to censor and destroy art, silence thinkers purely because of disagreement, and want to gain supremacy in society most of all, in a way that you are only allowed to follow their philosophy which includes all of the above.
Tell me, to put it simply, are you a fan of something as simple as Science?
...
And I'm not in any bubbles, because I used to be in yours, to put it bluntly. So, unlike you, I understand the issue from both sides. And I don't say that to put you down.
edit:
he keeps going
I don't think that every position is equal. Why do you make assumptions about things I haven't said? Have I done that to you? Do you think it's productive?

I'm not just grabbing examples in the manner you say. You are simply not aware of the academic work that the ideology is supported by. You don't seem to be very aware of the nature of the consequences of this ideology.

If you want proof, there's too much for me personally to list. I don't hoard it all somewhere to share with skeptical redditors online. But I can point you to resources that show it. You could follow James Lindsay on Twitter. Just based on his twitter feed, you will get all the proof you need that this is a real thing, not a conspiracy theory. Also, this site: https://newdiscourses.com/

You're looking at this through a very strict lense that can't apply in the world of ideas at every level. **The rise of this ideology has been very fast in the last few years, so the data you seek, in the manner you want it, is not there.**

What data do you want exactly? How do you want me to prove that journalistic media has been overtaken by extreme wokeism? You have to read them yourself. See how popular books like White Fragility, and ones concerning "anti-racism", both of which are racist and authoritarian, are on Amazon. See the nature of the statements of corporations in America following the Social Critical Justice agenda. See the mechanisms they are putting in place to deal with imaginary sets of problems, in nonsensical ways. Which scientific journal do you want to comment on these things? The ones from the social sciences, from which this ideology has risen to begin with? There are scientists and educators afraid to speak up against it in those very circles because of the extreme opprobium met by those few that already have. There are statistics on that, by the way, but I don't have them on hand.

Look, I'm not a social scientist. What you're asking of me is a bit ridiculous. This is a political issue, it doesn't reduce itself to a simple citation in a scientific paper. It's a very vast, complex issue with a lot of points of reference. I've pointed you in the direction where you can determine for yourself how real the issue I brought up is, which is a perfectly valid concern to have. There's not much more I can do. And this form of disagreement is deeply dishonest, since I'm not asking you to prove that America is a deeply racist country and that Western thought needs to be destroyed, for example. It would be a ludicrous ask. Go ahead, please, prove it. What's the matter?
submitted by _riotingpacifist to SubredditDrama [link] [comments]


YouTube Nature Cat 'Magical Mushroom Mystery Tour (Part 1) - YouTube NATURE CAT  Theme Song  PBS KIDS - YouTube 3 Hours of Amazing Nature Scenery & Relaxing Music for ... Nature Cat  Ants Revolution #1 - YouTube

Nature Vs Nurture Quotes (28 quotes) - Goodreads

  1. YouTube
  2. Nature Cat 'Magical Mushroom Mystery Tour (Part 1) - YouTube
  3. NATURE CAT Theme Song PBS KIDS - YouTube
  4. 3 Hours of Amazing Nature Scenery & Relaxing Music for ...
  5. Nature Cat Ants Revolution #1 - YouTube
  6. Nature Cat - 101B - Astronuts (Full Episode) - YouTube
  7. Nature on PBS - YouTube

Sing along to theme song from Nature Cat! Watch Nature Cat on your local PBS station, or watch anytime, anywhere on the PBS KIDS Video app. Check your local ... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. Wednesdays at 8/7c on PBS. Over the years, NATURE has brought the beauty and wonder of the natural world into American homes, becoming in the process the ben... #cartoons#nature_cat#Ants_Revolution# To watch all my cartoons videos, please Don't forget to tap the SUBSCRIBE Button and tap the 🔔icon to be updated for ne... Skip the theme song: 1:00 Nature Cat has a dream, to be first cat to walk on the moon. Daisy, Squeeks and Hal have always wanted to go to the moon too so the... Enjoy 3 hours of amazing nature scenery. This video features relaxing music that is ideal for sleep, study, meditation and yoga. Follow on Spotify https://... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.