Are you telling me you've never read an article where a scientist attributes daily decisions to DNA? — christian2017

What, like doing the dishes?

I assume you mean women doing dishes? In my house the men do the dishes. Assumptions are fun and funny. On a different note dna is responsible for many of the world's good and bad decisions (atleast partly)

Women more concerned with their mortality then men and evolutionary logical thought would dictate this is due to their dna. — christian2017

You were talking about women. I stayed on your subject. You said women’s daily decisions are based on their DNA. Thats a big assumption.

why? its an extremely common assumption and if you would like i could post 10 articles that would agree with me on this. Let me start the process.

That’s why I brought up the dishes. Where do these decisions a woman makes based on DNA begin and end, or are you saying every decision a woman makes is DNA based and always different from one a man would make?

why? its an extremely common assumption and if you would like i could post 10 articles that would agree with me on this. Let me start the process.

Oh oh.

Heres the articles for your enjoyment:

https://www.cell.com/trends/cell-biology/fulltext/S0962-8924(10)00075-9

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/can-dna-determine-the-diet-for-you

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/19/do-your-genes-determine-your-entire-life

http://genesinlife.org/genes-your-health/how-do-genes-impact-health-and-disease

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jun/02/twins-identical-genes-different-health-study

http://www.pbs.org/inthebalance/archives/ourgenes/could_we.html

https://www.qualityhealth.com/depression-articles/how-genetics-affects-your-decision-making

https://psychcentral.com/news/2010/07/23/genetics-influence-drinking-decisions/15945.html

That’s why I brought up the dishes. Where do these decisions a woman makes based on DNA begin and end, or are you saying every decision a woman makes is DNA based and always different from one a man would make? — Brett

no. life is extremely complex but to say dna doesn't effect our decisions is unscientific and probably irrational

That’s why I brought up the dishes. Where do these decisions a woman makes based on DNA begin and end, or are you saying every decision a woman makes is DNA based and always different from one a man would make? — Brett

i find it strange the way you phrased that. You could have phrased that "does every human decision based on DNA". The answer is no. The funny thing is that you could argue a stars gravitiational pull from 2 billion miles away effects our decisions. I'm not a big fan of predestination but it is hard to entirely dismiss and at this point in time i believe in it and i think that will be the case for the foreseable future.

*"is every human decision based on dna?"

Once again you are being vague. Are you telling me you've never read an article where a scientist attributes daily decisions to DNA? — christian2017

I doubt any reputable scientist qualified to make judgments in genetics, psychology, comparative zoology, or any other discipline ever made such a statement. Not even the most far out proponent of sociobiology would have. What you're talking about is silly and reductive. Naive to the point of incomprehensibility.

Time to put up or shut up. Provide some evidence. Specific to the point of DNA making women want to live longer, not some general statement about how behavior has a genetic component. I don't mean to be mean, but you can't just make dipsy-doodle comments without references and expect to be taken seriously.

what? Look up a few posts. I posted 8 effing articles. This is a very common concept in scientific journals and pop science magazines. you are a silly goose

Only two of the effing posts you put up have anything to do with genetics influencing decision making. Neither of them say anything about women's DNA making them want to live longer. Both of them discuss general behavioral tendencies.

alright, well if you aren't willing to make very short (extremely short) deductions, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Life is extremely complicated. The notion that DNA effects the people we become atleast to some measure is implicated in all 8 of those articles. I believe gun ownership is a good thing even though i don't own any "real" guns. Women however are better off owning guns then men as shown in the statistics posted above.

alright, well if you aren't willing to make very short (extremely short) deductions, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Life is extremely complicated. The notion that DNA effects the people we become atleast to some measure is implicated in all 8 of those articles. I believe gun ownership is a good thing even though i don't own any "real" guns. Women however are better off owning guns then men as shown in the statistics posted above. — christian2017

I don't "agree to disagree." Your understanding of genetics and human nature is naive and wrong. On the other hand, if what you mean by "agree to disagree" is that continued discussion on the subject between us is pointless, well then maybe I do agree to agree to disagree.

why wrong? I didn't say anything offensive pertaining to DNA. We can argue about naive.

Do you agree to disagree or do you not to agree to disagree? At the begininng and end you explicitly stated to opposite things.

What about my understanding of DNA is Naive. I stated earlier that DNA isn't the only factor in decision making. I don't even actually like the notion of DNA effecting our choices nor do i like the concept of predestination or fate. These are simply conclusions i came to partly based on my understanding of scientific determinism ("a brief history of time" by stephen hawkings)

why wrong? — christian2017

I don't mean to be rude, but I stand by my decision that any further discussion of this issue at this time is pointless.

thats fair.

So a gun owner could choose between surrendering his weapons to the authorities, keeping them in defiance of the law (and identifying as a criminal), or unloading them on the black market, perhaps for a tidy profit. One can imagine a flood of weapons in the hands of violent criminals and organised crime syndicates, and a shrinking window of opportunity to get away with activities such as armed robberies before the full force of the new laws came into effect. — Possibility

I have a couple of problems with this explanation. Why would regular people unload their guns onto a market whose buyers are criminals, and so likely to use those weapons against them? Perhaps a few unwise people did that, but there’d need to be some proper evidence that a lot of people did.

And it makes no sense to say there was a “shrinking window of opportunity to get away with activities such as armed robberies before the full force of the new laws came into effect.” Why would a disarmed public make it more difficult to get away with armed robbery?

I don’t know what happened to crime in Australia after those two years. But I think the point is simply that the claim less legal guns equals less violent crime isn’t a straightforward one to make.

But I think the point is simply that the claim less legal guns equals less violent crime isn’t a straightforward one to make. — AJJ

Fair enough. I’m not sure where Lott got his statistics from, but I notice that only the first two years of data were available following the law changes when his book was published (1998). All the Australian data I’ve seen show the spike in gun homicides in 1996, after which the gradual decline that was occurring (before the massacre) resumed without much change. Still, this isn’t a convincing argument for gun control laws.

In my opinion, the aim of Australia’s gun control laws in 1996 was to enable police to prosecute more outlaw bikie gang members for possessing and brandishing illegal firearms (particularly against police), rather than actually reduce the incidence of shootings per se. But they won’t tell you that’s the reason. The decade prior to 1996 saw three other shooting massacres, all related to Melbourne crime syndicates, and the gun laws were already being discussed in parliament earlier that year. The massacre of 35 tourists and shopkeepers in an innocent little heritage town was a handy impetus to garner public support and push the laws through. Without it, the public didn’t much care about bikie gang wars or police safety.

Personally, I think the real issue with US gun culture (apart from feeding on fear) is that Americans see possession of a firearm as a fundamental part of their identity as a nation - in the same way as Australians see alcohol and gambling (which, incidentally, is where our major social issues stem from). There will be no effective gun laws in the US unless they can find a way to put aside this element of their identity. America without gun ownership is like Australia without beer (much less unnecessary violence and social destruction, if you ask me).

As for the argument regarding gender equality, to suggest that feminists should be supporting the right to carry a weapon because it gives women a more ‘equal’ ability to defend themselves that wouldn’t be there without the gun is beyond ridiculous, and attempts to direct the focus away from genuine feminist issues - such as the use of broad gender statistics which perpetuate the assumption that women are ‘generally’ less capable than men.

As a woman, if I believe I need a gun to feel safe, then there is something fundamentally askew - and it’s NOT with the world - it’s either with how I interact with the world, or how I think the world sees me.

I don’t have a gun, and there isn’t one on our property. I’m not going to pretend I feel safe 100% of the time. But to believe that possessing a gun and knowing how to use it makes you feel safer than without it is a delusion that feeds on fear, in my opinion.

I know very little about Australia and its politics beyond those statistics, so can’t comment any more about that.

The issue I’m concerned with here is whether allowing legal gun ownership deters violent crime. It seems to me effective gun laws would be based on a true understanding of that deterrence (if there truly is one, and whatever it might be worth).

As for the argument regarding gender equality, to suggest that feminists should be supporting the right to carry a weapon because it gives women a more ‘equal’ ability to defend themselves that wouldn’t be there without the gun is beyond ridiculous — Possibility

Feminist groups already do (or did at the time Hitchens’ book was written) support the right to carry guns. Hitchens gives Armed Females of America as an example.

and attempts to direct the focus away from genuine feminist issues - such as the use of broad gender statistics which perpetuate the assumption that women are ‘generally’ less capable than men. — Possibility

I don’t see that it does; it just highlights an aspect of the debate that creates a contradiction in a standard left-wing world view.

As a woman, if I believe I need a gun to feel safe, then there is something fundamentally askew - and it’s NOT with the world - it’s either with how I interact with the world, or how I think the world sees me. — Possibility

The statistic I quoted isn’t about women feeling safe; it’s about men and women alike being safer when they’re allowed to carry handguns, with the greater difference being among women.

Feminist groups already do (or did at the time Hitchens’ book was written) support the right to carry guns. Hitchens gives Armed Females of America as an example. — AJJ

AFA is NOT a feminist group. It is a group of women who support the right to carry guns. There’s a difference.

AFA is NOT a feminist group. It is a group of women who support the right to carry guns. There’s a difference. — Possibility

Hitchens quotes their website at the time:

Those who push for gun control are of the same mind-set as Palestinian suicide bombers and the Taliban who kidnap women for rape and sex-slave trade. Both don’t like the possibility of armed citizens, in these cases, especially an armed woman.

Fair enough if they’re not principally a feminist group, but that sounds like an expression of feminism to me.

Fair enough if they’re not principally a feminist group, but that sounds like an expression of feminism to me. — AJJ

You cannot be serious.

You cannot be serious. — Possibility

The statement identifies gun control as a means of oppression, especially of women, and desires it be resisted.

who support the right to carry guns. — Possibility

There's such a right?

AFA is NOT a feminist group. It is a group of women who support the right to carry guns. There’s a difference. — Possibility

If they have the word ‘female’ in their name then they represent the views or condition of females. Otherwise they’re concerned citizens. Why include female in your name otherwise.

I do find it odd that such a group exists.

As a woman, if I believe I need a gun to feel safe, then there is something fundamentally askew - and it’s NOT with the world - it’s either with how I interact with the world, or how I think the world sees me. — Possibility

There’s something about this that just doesn’t add up. Your position seems to be that if you believe you need a gun to feel safe then the problem is with you, that it’s with your perception of the world. As if you’re projecting your subjective fear onto the world at large, which is not as you see it (and you comprehend this), and that it’s really a peaceful loving world and there is no, or little, chance of anyone out there with malicious attitudes ever coming into contact with you. Does it also, then, mean that there is nothing to fear out there but fear itself, that you must convince yourself that your fears are only projections and not real. Where does this begin and end?

The statement identifies gun control as a means of oppression, especially of women, and desires it be resisted. — AJJ

The statement is an appeal to fear and hatred: side with those who support ‘the possibility of armed citizens’, OR be associated with Palestinian suicide bombers, Taliban and anyone who kidnaps women for rape and sex-slave trade. This isn’t feminism. It’s a false dichotomy.

If they have the word ‘female’ in their name then they represent the views or condition of females. Otherwise they’re concerned citizens. Why include female in your name otherwise. — Brett

No, if they have the term ‘armed females’ in their name then they represent the views or condition of armed females. That’s not the same as being feminist.

There’s something about this that just doesn’t add up. Your position seems to be that if you believe you need a gun to feel safe then the problem is with you, that it’s with your perception of the world. As if you’re projecting your subjective fear onto the world at large, which is not as you see it (and you comprehend this), and that it’s really a peaceful loving world and there is no, or little, chance of anyone out there with malicious attitudes ever coming into contact with you. Does it also, then, mean that there is nothing to fear out there but fear itself, that you must convince yourself that your fears are only projections and not real. Where does this begin and end? — Brett

I’m not implying that it’s really a peaceful loving world, or that you must convince yourself that your fears are only projections and not real. My position is that interacting with the world as if you should be afraid is not going to reduce malicious attitudes or fear - it’s going to add to it. Brandishing a gun doesn’t say ‘I am not afraid’ just because it incites fear in others.

No, if they have the term ‘armed females’ in their name then they represent the views or condition of armed females. — Possibility

Okay. Then if they have term ‘females’ in their name then doesn’t it follow that they represent the views or conditions of females. What’s a feminist if not someone representing the views of women and only women?

Edit: okay, I think I see, a feminist is someone who advocates for women’s rights.