|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 342 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 50 of 342:
| 
Jan 17 13:00 UTC 2006 |
And by the way, Murrow's smoking habit finally did him in. Lung cancer,
1965.
|
scholar
|
|
response 51 of 342:
|
Jan 17 13:55 UTC 2006 |
How do you know the lung cancer was from smoking?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 52 of 342:
|
Jan 17 17:08 UTC 2006 |
There is a high statistical correlation. That doesn't constitute *knowing*,
but is a data point for the correlation.
|
tod
|
|
response 53 of 342:
|
Jan 17 17:15 UTC 2006 |
In less scientific terms: a scientific wild assed guess (SWAG).
|
mcnally
|
|
response 54 of 342:
|
Jan 17 17:21 UTC 2006 |
re #51: When it comes right down to it, nobody on Grex really even
KNOWS that Murrow is dead, if total certainty is what you require..
But one can take skepticism to unhealthy extremes.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 55 of 342:
|
Jan 17 17:25 UTC 2006 |
Re #53: ...or an informed hypothesis.
|
tod
|
|
response 56 of 342:
|
Jan 17 17:34 UTC 2006 |
re #55
Based on what theory?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 57 of 342:
|
Jan 17 18:08 UTC 2006 |
On the vast accumulation of data supporting the hypothesis of a the
relation between smoking and lung cancer.
|
tod
|
|
response 58 of 342:
|
Jan 17 18:19 UTC 2006 |
Isn't it possible Murrow got lung cancer from pollution at "on-site" reporting
gigs?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 59 of 342:
|
Jan 17 19:24 UTC 2006 |
Like my grandfather- was a cigar smoker and died of black lung...
(oh, did I mention he worked in a coal mine too? Now what was is that
caused the black lung?)
|
tod
|
|
response 60 of 342:
|
Jan 17 21:04 UTC 2006 |
His fireplace at home?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 61 of 342:
|
Jan 17 21:24 UTC 2006 |
Could be!
|
slynne
|
|
response 62 of 342:
|
Jan 17 22:04 UTC 2006 |
My grandfather worked in a coal mine too and he smoked but he died of
prostate cancer when he was 88
|
scholar
|
|
response 63 of 342:
|
Jan 17 22:52 UTC 2006 |
Re. 52: There's a 'high statistical correlation' that shows LUNG CANCER CAN
BE OBTAINED FROM THINGS OTHER THAN SMOKING.
Prof. Remmers's statement doesn't pass the most basic standard of TRUTH you
could find.
You can't even say THERE"S A HIGH PROBABILITY, THOUGH. Because when people
say something's true, they mean something other than there being a high
probability.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 64 of 342:
|
Jan 18 02:11 UTC 2006 |
That's what I said: "That doesn't constitute *knowing*, but is a data
point for the correlation.". Certainly there are other causes of lung
cancer.
What do we know here? He was a heavy smoker, and he died of lung cancer.
Any doctor would say that he was running a strong risk of lung cancer by
smoking. That does not mean that the smoking caused his lung cancer. If,
however, he had by chance been included in a well designed study of the
correlation between smoking and lung cancer, guess in which cell in a 2x2
Contingency test his case would fall?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 65 of 342:
|
Jan 18 02:28 UTC 2006 |
set drift = off
For my Interim class ("Developing a Christian Mind") I had to watch "The
Mission." It depicts the Jesuit missions among the Guarani people of South
America, especially the mission of San Carlos. The major theme seems to be
redemption, with the personal redemption of Mendoza, a slave trader (who later
becomes a monk), in the first part and the systemic redemption of the native
peoples and of the land in the second part. In the end, as part of a deal
between the Church, Spain, and Portugal, the Church removes its support and
protection from the missions as they are transferred into Portuguese control;
San Carlos, whose inhabitants refused to leave, is massacred by heavily-armed
troops as they are singing Mass (or one of the Offices; I couldn't tell). One
of those depressing films that still made me want to see it again and again.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 66 of 342:
|
Jan 18 02:37 UTC 2006 |
Missionaries have been responsible for the destruction of many indigenous
cultures. Missionaries are abominations. Anthropologists today attempt to
integrate such indigenous cultures into facilitated contact with the world
without displacing the essential of their cultures. This often requires
finding ways by which they can obtain better economic ustenance from their
native lands. There are a number of organizations that are assisting such
indigenous cultures, e.g.
http://www.ran.org/info_center/factsheets/s07.html
|
kingjon
|
|
response 67 of 342:
|
Jan 18 02:45 UTC 2006 |
These events took place in the 1750s.
Also, *even if* the native cultures were being destroyed by the missions (which
the film, which in the opening text claimed that the events were true, gave
evidence only of the opposite), the native cultures were being destroyed anyway
by the slave trade, from which the missions [note that the term "missionary" or
its plural didn't come up once!] were their only protection.
The first rule of missionaries today (in every publication I've read put out by
a missionary organization) is to learn the culture the missionary will be going
to. I don't see any "destruction" inherent in that either.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 68 of 342:
|
Jan 18 03:03 UTC 2006 |
Missionaries attempt to change the indigenous religions to their own. This
is regrettable as a lot of the indigenous culture is related to their
religions. You change the latter, you change the former. I expect that
indigenous religions will change anyway without assistance, just by the
exposure to other cultures, but that should be up to the people.
|
bru
|
|
response 69 of 342:
|
Jan 18 07:50 UTC 2006 |
and you think this is a bad thing? Why?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 70 of 342:
|
Jan 18 09:50 UTC 2006 |
shut up, kola.
|
scott
|
|
response 71 of 342:
|
Jan 18 13:36 UTC 2006 |
I was curious about the phrase "systemic redemption of the native peoples".
What exactly does that mean?
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 72 of 342:
|
Jan 18 13:40 UTC 2006 |
Assimilation?
|
remmers
|
|
response 73 of 342:
|
Jan 18 13:56 UTC 2006 |
(Maybe someone should retitle this the "Drift Item"...)
|
scholar
|
|
response 74 of 342:
|
Jan 18 14:19 UTC 2006 |
Re. 69: It violates the Prime Directive.
|