Leaderboard

Several issues with the argument. The first, not all traits are under selection. In fact, most are likely not. Second, many traits, including autism, are not fully genetic, and even if under negative selection are not expected to be vanish entirely. Third, whatever advantages autism confers, is highly situation dependent and especially on the more extreme end, the negatives vastly outlast the positives. Conversely, psychopaths are becoming CEOs https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccullough/2019/12/09/the-psychopathic-ceo/?sh=7dfff38d791e

Same mannequin, different wig

Citation needed Or they’re just greedy and have leverage to pay less in taxes. I mean, if it’s inefficiency they’re worried about they could just fund solutions themselves, but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of that going on.

I lean towards Bill Maher's stance that we shouldn't have to make excuses for Islam and withhold criticism just because there are anti Muslim bigots running about. Its more extreme factions are notably ugly and anyone has the right to condemn the ugly parts. The repression of women, enslavement, violence to infidels, etc is reprehensible and I'm not going to take some faux-tolerant posture that hey that's a different culture and we will be tolerant of those differences. Nor does anti-Christian whataboutism interest me. Yes, other religions crank out garbage, too, but if I am criticizing Islam then that's the topic and it won't get better for adherents of that religion unless condemnation is strong, focused, and delivered from as many quarters as possible. It's possible that Christianity's advantage (in the limited sense of now being a bit less rapey/slavey/suicide vesty) is partly just time - it's had an extra 600 years to get clear of its middle ages. I agree with @Peterkin that the "more harsh and biblical" excesses of a religion seem to thrive in a theocratic society more than a secular one with multiple coexisting religions. Power corrupts.

The original Abrahamic scripture has God putting man at the top of creation: All this is for you to enjoy. Then he punished the humans for developing a moral sense, by tossing them out into the wilderness, to live however they could. Unlike the origin stories of primitive religions, which were told by hunter-gatherers who live in and with nature, this story is borrowed from tiered culture with a clearly defined ruler. The only reference to nature is as a hardship to overcome. This story seems to have gained acceptance at a time when the tribe of Abraham was nomadic herders, who no doubt encountered much of that hardship. Muhammad had some education in that scripture, plus the Christian corollary - which was gaining popularity and military strength. You have to bear in mind that a large part of that territory is desert; the fertile bits were already occupied by powerful, sophisticated civilizations founded on farming and urban industries - nature is seen as an enemy, when it's seen at at all. The Arab peoples were urban remnants of older empires, engaged in seafaring trade along the coast, and nomadic herders, hunter-gatherers, seasonal farmers, traders and raiders in the interior. Some practiced a version of Christianity, some were polytheists. It was Muhammad's vision that they could be united for their mutual benefit, and live amicable alongside the other "people of the book". In the OT, women, children and slaves are chattels of the patriarch; servants and field workers, not much more. Jehovah doesn't cavil at commanding Abraham to sacrifice the son he waited and prayed for all his adult life - then says, "Just kidding! Here's a nice ram instead." No question that Abraham has a right to kill both. Jehovah kills off all Job's dependents for the sole purpose of testing his faith, then gives him new children and servants, as if they were interchangeable accoutrements. In the NT, there is no reform suggested to the status of women and children; in Christianity, men were allowed to beat their wives, own slaves, abuse or sell their children. Why should the third iteration have different values? Eventually, reformed versions of all three religions became less rigid, more tolerant and humane. They were influenced, too, by secular thinking in their various societies, as religion lost its death-grip on culture and governance. Where any of these religions is in sole power, the laws are far more harsh and biblical than in countries with multiple religions a strong secular faction.

All the Abrahamic religions are heavily patriarchal, with a skewed hierarchy that places God above Man and Man above Nature, which seems to give most followers a free pass when it comes to environmental responsibility. Just like Christianity and Judaism, Islam preaches that the balance Allah created shouldn't be tampered with, and the Hadiths contain many admonitions about misusing natural resources and protecting our environment. Unfortunately, politically these religions have a horrible track record with environmental causes. I'm not sure what causes this hypocrisy, but I suspect many Muslims consider protecting Earth to be a waste of time compared to getting into Heaven.

A woman finishes delivering the eulogy for her late husband and asks whether anyone in the assembled congregation would like to add anything. A man stands up and says, "Plethora," and sits down again. "Thank you," responds the woman. "That means a lot." Why do the Amish never water ski? It's too hard on the horses.

Strange game. The goal was Peace. Can safely assume any Peace would be long lasting among survivors of a nuclear holocaust since nobody would wish to repeat such horrors… and peace would be stable… until food ran out, that is.

I know a wizard diesel mechanic who would be just as insulted as you are. Some societal pressures are worthwhile, like obeying laws, but I think we're wising up to the fact that trying to tell anybody other than yourself how they should dress, or what pronouns they should be comfortable with, and yes, even which gender they should present, is a hypocritical stance right off the bat. If we don't want the judgement of every ex-sister-in-law with their own ideas of what and how we should be, then we should let everybody else decide for themselves as well.

Strange, the US is a de-escalating, peace loving nation. <whistles>

The question you first asked, Phi, was here in response to what I posted here The above expresses my position on the matter, and you'll note it was posted before your question. My position is that it is defined by the context, and gave examples of differing meanings to different people. And I said I was fine with that. People are free to choose the definition that suits their situation/context. So maybe I was wrong; you might have a reading comprehension problem. Should I write my next post to you in crayon ? Thank you for at least taking time to actually read my posts. Others don't seem so inclined. As a matter of fact , no, we don't know whether this is true. As I said, I was just stirring the pot a little, and wasn't going to pursue it much. Iassumed CharonY would come back with information about research as he always does, but did not expect everyone to ignore my point ( except you ) Here is a google search for autism research into genetic causes of autism - Google Scholar while dwarfism and X Y chromosonal disorders relating to sex don't turn up much, although more specific searches for Klinefelter Syndrome ( XX and XYY male ) and Turner Syndrome ( XXX and XY female ) might. Notice that in Biology and medicine, the genetic 'mutations' ( as Charon Y terms them ) are still referred to as male and female. Maybe someone should explain to Phi about context.

Oh. It's the 8-ball. If "demonstrating a coincidence" was in order, then rolling a die inside a fluid container for the answer would be apt. I'm not. I'm wondering whether I should look into retroactive reporting for the people I've blocked...