SkyscraperCity banner

3181 - 3200 of 3226 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,465 Posts
O marketing é muito forte a ponto de gente mesmo idosa, acreditar...

E o dinheiro rola solto, principalmente nas mãos de ONGs "ambientalistas"...

Mas voltando ao assunto da "ironia", talvez tu não tenha entendido a dele...

Ele acredita no AGA e fez uma ironia como se fosse fake, comparando com a terra plana... e como se quem questiona o AGA tb fosse "terraplanista"...
 

·
Visitante desde 2002
Joined
·
2,879 Posts
A terra não é plana e isso pode ser observado por qualquer um, ou seja, não precisa ser cientista pra saber disso..

É bem diferente...
Eu acho que você não está prestando atenção nos meus posts pois estou destruindo o globo sem dó nem piedade! :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,209 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,186
Homens também são vítimas de violência doméstica. E não há lei para protegê-los

Por Luan Sperandio, especial para a Gazeta do Povo
[18/06/2019] [15:10]
19 COMENTÁRIOS

No Reino Unido, 80% dos homens vítimas de violência doméstica atendidos pela ONG ManKind Initiative passam anos em silêncio.|
Homens também são vítimas de violência doméstica — e em número muito maior do que as pessoas imaginam. Em maio, por exemplo, o coronel da Polícia Militar Silvio Gomes Ribeiro, 54 anos, foi encontrado morto em casa, depois de ter sido atingido por um haltere na cabeça. As investigações apontam a esposa do policial como autora do crime, que teria sido motivado por uma crise de ciúmes.

O crime levou a deputada estadual Ana Caroline Campagnolo (PSL) a ocupar a tribuna da Assembleia Legislativa para falar deste assunto que é motivo de deboche ou descaso: excluídos da Lei Maria da Penha, homens são, sim, vítimas de violência doméstica.

Estigma e agressões psicológicas

Em 2014, uma ONG inglesa fez uma campanha na qual um casal de atores discutia no meio da rua. Em um primeiro momento, a homem agredia verbalmente e ameaçava a mulher. As pessoas que estavam por perto intervieram imediatamente para proteger a moça. Depois, a cena foi repetida tendo como vítima o homem, que sofria até agressões físicas da atriz. Neste caso, ninguém interferiu. Algumas das pessoas que passavam pela cena deram até risada.

O objetivo da campanha era justamente este: chamar a atenção para o fato de a violência doméstica sofrida por homens também ser muito comum, embora geralmente seja menos reconhecida pela sociedade do que a violência contra mulheres.

Leia também: A violência doméstica é mais comum do que se imagina

No Reino Unido, estima-se que ocorram 720 mil casos de violência doméstica contra homens todos os anos. Isso significa que os homens representam 40% das vítimas de todos os casos de violência doméstica naquele país. A maior parte das agressões, contudo, não é denunciada.

Como em geral homens são fisicamente mais fortes do que as mulheres, a sociedade entende que eles têm mais chance de impedirem uma agressão vinda de uma mulher. Essa ideia, no entanto, desconsidera que mulheres violentas frequentemente usam instrumentos como facas e tesouras nas agressões físicas.

Vale ressaltar ainda que as agressões psicológicas podem causar muitos danos. E, nesse sentido, é raro homens procurarem ajuda médica. Muitos deles, aliás, não compreendem que podem ser vítimas de uma agressão por parte de uma mulher.

A sociedade parece não perceber que o abuso nas relações conjugais independe de gênero. A violência doméstica contra os homens é um tabu. Tanto que a ManKind Initiative, uma das principais entidades a enfrentarem o problema, aponta que 80% dos homens atendidos dizem que nunca contaram o que passaram a ninguém.

VEJA TAMBÉM:
A valorização da mulher
O valor da família
A importância do casamento
Nos países latinos, a situação é ainda pior. Segundo a professora da Escola Nacional de Assistência Social do México (UNAM) Nelia Tello, o silêncio que rodeia a violência doméstica contra homens é causado pelo machismo. Homens têm receio de serem julgados como “menos homens” porque sofreram agressão por parte de uma mulher, por isso as próprias vítimas buscam acobertar os episódios.

Entre os casais que têm filhos, a possibilidade de perda da guarda ou afastamento das crianças pode ser um fator adicional para que homens evitem denúncias.

Mais comum do que você imagina

É consenso acadêmico que há uma subnotificação inerente à violência conjugal, algo que vale tanto para homens quanto para mulheres. Uma parcela considerável das vítimas deste tipo de agressão não denunciam, tampouco procuram ajuda. Entre os motivos estão a vergonha, o medo e, inclusive, a incapacidade de se perceber que se está sendo vítima de agressões.

Desde os anos 1970, contudo, estudos empíricos têm mostrado uma maior paridade entre as vítimas de violência doméstica. Os dados mostram que homens sofrem tanto com violência doméstica quanto mulheres. É o que se chama de “simetria entre os sexos”.

O primeiro levantamento empírico a demonstrar isso foi conduzido nos Estados Unidos pelos pesquisadores Murray Straus e Richard Gelles, que se tornaram referência no assunto. O estudo concluiu que 12% das mulheres tinham sofrido alguma violência conjugal considerada leve nos 12 meses anteriores à pesquisa. Entre os homens, 11,6% tinham sofrido alguma violência conjugal leve no ano que antecedeu o levantamento.. Já em relação à violência conjugal grave, 4,6% dos homens disseram ter sido vítimas; entre as mulheres, o índice foi de 3,8%.

Um estudo de 2010 analisou mais de 200 levantamentos nos quais foi encontrada simetria de gênero. Os levantamentos analisados mostram que a maioria das violências cometidas é mútua, isto é, mulheres agridem homens que agridem as mulheres - e vice-versa. A legítima defesa é responsável por um percentual pequeno das agressões.

Marxismo feminista

Na literatura feminista, no entanto, há autores que afirmam que a única causa de violência doméstica é o patriarcado. Em um estudo dos pesquisadores da Universidade de British Columbia (Canadá), por exemplo, ficou claro que há um paralelo neo-marxista na teoria feminista de violência conjugal. Partindo da premissa de que homens são privilegiados em relação às mulheres em sociedades patriarcais, mulheres que praticam violência doméstica contra homens estariam apenas se rebelando contra um sistema injusto. Esse tipo de violência, portanto, seria justificável como legítima autodefesa.

Segundo o estudo, é possível que a visão ideológica tenha contaminado trabalhos acadêmicos que buscavam reforçar essa ideia, mesmo que para tanto precisassem negligenciar pesquisas empíricas. Tal contaminação se deu por uma série de metodologias estatísticas questionáveis e academicamente equivocadas, elaboradas para negar, ocultar e distorcer dados que mostrassem a existência de simetria de gênero.

Não se trata de ignorar o fato de o patriarcado e o machismo serem uma das causas da violência conjugal. Os estudos empíricos que ressaltam a simetria de gênero não negam que o machismo e o patriarcado são fatores relevantes. A questão é que as evidências empíricas disponíveis mostram que o machismo e uma cultura patriarcal não são fatores isolados e homens não são, como o senso-comum leva a crer, apenas uma minoria entre as vítimas de violência doméstica.

Lei Maria da Penha

Murray Straus argumenta que a negação das evidências de mais de três décadas de estudos permitiu a implementação de políticas públicas ideologicamente enviesadas.

Um exemplo disso é a Lei Maria da Penha, criada em 2006 para prevenir e coibir a violência doméstica contra a mulher. A lei não abrange a violência doméstica cometida contra os homens.

Para o advogado e professor de Direito Penal Gustavo Scandelari, a Lei Maria da Penha proporcionou avanços sociais significativos, mas no âmbito doméstico também há vítimas de violência que não são mulheres e que sofrem com ausência de proteção legislativa específica.

“Já atendemos um caso em que a esposa agredia violentamente seu marido que, por receio de ser mal visto pelos amigos e pela sociedade, sofreu em silêncio durante anos. Depois, quando decidiu se divorciar, ele procurou nossa ajuda e movemos um processo criminal contra a esposa. Ainda assim ela continuou ameaçando o ex-marido de morte por um bom tempo”, conta.

VEJA TAMBÉM:
Como o desenvolvimento econômico pode reduzir a violência contra as mulheres
Violência contra a mulher: por que a lei, sozinha, não dá conta
O programa em defesa da mulher que inspira o ministério de Damares
Outra crítica que o jurista faz em relação à legislação é a de que há situações em que casais homoafetivos se agridem mas, como nenhum dos dois é mulher, a vítima deixa de contar com os direitos que a lei reserva textualmente apenas às mulheres. “O ambiente doméstico também pode comportar situações de violência grave sem o envolvimento de relacionamentos afetivos: agressões entre irmãos, tios e sobrinhos, colegas de quarto, etc. Essas são todas configurações possíveis de coabitação em que a vítima pode estar vulnerável perante o agressor. Mas, se a vítima não for mulher, ela não conta com o amparo legal”, explica.

Algumas decisões de tribunais brasileiros têm ampliado o alcance da Lei Maria da Penha para situações nas quais a agressão ocorre em âmbito doméstico mesmo que a vítima não seja mulher. “O ponto decisivo é demonstrar que a violência foi doméstica”, diz Scandelari.

Decisões do STJ já admitiram a aplicação da lei entre namorados, mãe e filha, padrasto e enteada, irmãos e casais homoafetivos femininos. As pessoas envolvidas não têm de morar sob o mesmo teto. A regra, contudo, é que a vítima precisa ser mulher.

A Lei Maria da Penha também alterou dispositivos do Código Penal, como no artigo 129, parágrafo 9º, que agravou a pena em casos de lesão corporal para vítimas de violência doméstica em geral, não apenas para mulheres. Isso foi consolidado em julgamento de 2012 pela 5ª Turma do Superior Tribunal de Justiça.

Já um julgamento de agosto de 2011 da 4º Turma do Tribunal do Paraná reconheceu a aplicabilidade da Lei Maria da Penha para uniões homoafetivas naquele estado.

O advogado criminalista e constitucionalista Adib Abdouni também acredita que deva haver uma mudança na legislação. “Pelo princípio constitucional da isonomia, faz sentido que homens também tenham abrangência da Lei Maria da Penha, mas juízes que aplicarem analogia para aplicar a legislação nesse sentido podem acabar por contrariar o princípio da reserva legal, isto é, a ideia de que não pode haver crime sem lei anterior que o defina", explica.

Para Scandelari , a alteração da palavra “mulher” por “pessoa” na Lei Maria da Penha seria bem-vinda. “Isso já ocorre, por exemplo, com o crime de ‘tráfico de pessoas’. Embora mais de 70% das vítimas desse crime sejam mulheres, a lei proíbe o tráfico ilícito de ‘pessoas’, não apenas de ‘mulheres’”, argumenta.

O seu apoio mantém o jornalismo vivo_O jornalismo tem um papel fundamental em nossa sociedade. O papel de informar, de esclarecer, de contar a verdade e trazer luz para o que, muitas vezes, está no escuro.Esse é o trabalho de um jornalista e a missão da Gazeta do Povo. Mas para isso, nós precisamos de você e do seu apoio, pois juntos nós podemos, através de matérias iguais a essa que você acabou de ler, buscar as transformações que tanto queremos.Apoie o jornalismo da Gazeta do PovoJá é assinante? Faça login.
19COMENTÁRIOS
Deixe sua opinião
Como você se sentiu com este conteúdo?57 SURPRESO 47%INSPIRADO 28%TRISTE 14%FELIZ 7%NÃO LIGO 2%RAIVA 2%CHATEADO 0%MEDO 0%
Encontrou algo errado na matéria?COMUNIQUE ERROS
Sobre a Gazeta do Povo
+ na Gazeta
Eu quase namorei Jair Bolsonaro

Universidade retira quadro com animais mortos após reclamações de veganos

Quem paga o quê? A negociação que pode abalar a aliança entre EUA e Coreia do Sul

As novas táticas de defesa de Israel

Principais Manchetes
Lula e as eleições: o que pode mudar a “ficha suja” do petista na Justiça

Esquerda arma guerra ao pacote de Bolsonaro e conta com “fogo amigo” do governo

As razões para Bolsonaro pedir um “pacote social” a Guedes

Recorde de pedidos para impeachment de ministros do STF: o que pode acontecer?

Sugestões para você
Nazismo: o filho que a esquerda não assume
Muito além de estados e municípios: tudo que a PEC Paralela muda na Previdência
Giovanni salva, o Coxa vence e o vídeo de pai e filho vibrando viraliza e emociona a todos; veja!
O voto em javanês, o drama de Cármen Lúcia e mais um julgamento para Lula
O pagamento do 13.o salário pode mudar. Saiba o que diz o Programa Verde Amarelo
CSA x Fluminense AO VIVO: como assistir ao jogo na TV
Eles confundem Fabio Porchat com Augusto Pinochet
O preconceito da elite “progressista” em relação à classe média
Receba nossasNEWSLETTERS
Bom diaAlexandre GarciaJ. R. GuzzoPolítica nacionalLúcio VazMauro Cezar e futebol nacionalIdeiasDiário de ClasseGazeta InspiraJoão FreyParaná e CuritibaAthletico, Coritiba e ParanáEconomiaEstilo de Vida
RECEBER
Receba nossas notíciasNO CELULAR
WHATSAPPMESSENGERTELEGRAM
As regras de privacidade dos grupos são definidas pelo WhatsApp. Ao entrar, seu número pode ser visto por outros integrantes do grupo.

Comentários [ ]
Para comentar, faça login em sua conta.
COMENTÁRIOS
Fim dos comentários.

Gazeta do PovoIdeiasHomens também são vítimas de violência doméstica. E não há lei para protegê-los
Acompanhe a Gazeta do Povo nas redes sociais
Sobre
Conheça a Gazeta
100 Anos Gazeta do Povo
Expediente
Mapa do Site
Termos de Uso
Dúvidas Frequentes
Fale Conosco
Trabalhe Conosco
Agência de Notícias
Clube Gazeta
Minha Conta
Anuncie
Assine"
Leia mais em: https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/ideias/homens-tambem-sao-vitimas-de-violencia-domestica-e-nao-ha-lei-para-protege-los/
Copyright © 2019, Gazeta do Povo. Todos os direitos reservados.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,209 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,187
Trazendo um post antigo complementar

http://sexoprivilegiado.blogspot.com/2014/03/quatro-em-cada-cinco-pessoas-assassinadas-por-violencia-domestica-no-brasil-sao-homens.html

2.1 – Torturando os números

Há uma série de estudos sobre violência no Brasil chamada Mapa da Violência3, publicada pelo Instituto Sangari, com apoio do Ministério da Saúde e do Ministério da Justiça. O sociólogo Julio Jacobo Waiselfisz é o responsável pela pesquisa.

Prestemos bastante atenção nos números da imagem logo abaixo. Observemos como é fácil manipular estatísticas e torturar os números de tal forma que eles digam aquilo que se deseja mostrar. E uma das melhores formas de enganar as pessoas com números é usando taxas percentuais. Os números abaixo foram publicados pelo sociólogo Julio Jacobo Waiselfisz em um de seus estudos4, e mostram as taxas percentuais de homicídios decorridos por violência doméstica referentes ao ano de 2010:


Mapa da Violência 2012. Atualização: Homicídios de Mulheres no Brasil.

É muito provável que a maioria das pessoas, sobretudo aquelas que não possuem muitas habilidades com números, ao se deparar com tais dados, conclua que o número de homicídios de mulheres causados por violência doméstica seja maior do que o número de homicídios de homens causados pelo mesmo tipo de violência. Conclusão errada, mas, de certa forma, admissível, já que o próprio pesquisador que publicou tais números induz o leitor a concluir dessa maneira, quando diz: “Já entre as mulheres, essa proporção eleva-se para 41%”.

Trata-se de um ardil. A intenção exatamente é fazer com que o leitor conclua aquilo que o pesquisador quer. Aquela porcentagem de “14,3%” de homicídios de homens causados por violência doméstica é relativa ao número total de óbitos por homicídios de homens. Analogamente, a porcentagem de “41%” de homicídios de mulheres causados por violência doméstica é relativa ao número total de óbitos por homicídios de mulheres. Ou seja, cada taxa percentual em questão está relacionada, respectivamente, com o seu próprio sexo. É bem verdade que o pesquisador disse: “Entre os homens... . Já entre as mulheres...”, mas isso dificilmente é captado pelas pessoas. O mais provável é que sejam levadas a concluir, erroneamente, que as mulheres sejam as maiores vítimas.

2.2 – Homens são aproximadamente 80% dos vitimados por homicídios causados por violência doméstica

Segundo os dados oficiais do Governo colhidos pelo Sistema de Informações sobre Mortalidade (SIM/Datasus/MS), em 2010 tivemos um número absoluto de 52.970 homicídios no Brasil. Desse total, foram assassinados 48.493 homens e apenas 4.477 mulheres. Ou seja, houve quase 11 vezes mais homens sendo assassinados do que mulheres. Em termos percentuais, os homens representam aproximadamente 91,5% do total de vitimados, enquanto que as mulheres, apenas 8,5% desse total.




Ora, se 14,3% e 41% são, respectivamente, as taxas percentuais do total de homicídios de homens e mulheres causados por violência doméstica em 2010, isso quer dizer que:
14,3% do número total de homicídios de homens: 0,143 x 48.493 = 6.934
41% do número total de homicídios de mulheres: 0,41 x 4.477 = 1.836
Total: 6.934 + 1836 = 8.770
Ou seja, morreram 6.934 homens por violência doméstica, enquanto morreram por violência doméstica apenas 1.836 mulheres. Do total de 8.770 homicídios por violência doméstica que ocorreram em 2010 no Brasil, morreram aproximadamente quase quatro vezes mais homens do que mulheres, ou ainda, os homens foram 79,1% do total de vitimados por homicídios causados por violência doméstica (6.934 / 8.770), enquanto que as mulheres foram apenas 20,9% desse total (1.836 / 8.770).

3 – As ululantes evidências de que os homens são os maiores vulneráveis

3.1 – Homicídios no Brasil em 2010
Total de homicídios: 52.970;
Total de homens mortos: 48.493 (≈ 91,5% do total);
Total de mulheres mortas: apenas 4.477 (≈ 8,5% do total)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,209 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,190
A Guerra da Esquerda contra a Ciência

SKIP TO MAIN CONTENT


The Liberals' War on Science

How politics distorts science on both ends of the spectrum

By Michael Shermer on February 1, 2013
Believe it or not—and I suspect most readers will not—there's a liberal war on science. Say what?

We are well aware of the Republican war on science from the eponymous 2006 book (Basic Books) by Chris Mooney, and I have castigated conservatives myself in my 2006 book Why Darwin Matters (Henry Holt) for their erroneous belief that the theory of evolution leads to a breakdown of morality. A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Many conservatives seem to grant early-stage embryos a moral standing that is higher than that of adults suffering from debilitating diseases potentially curable through stem cells. And most recently, Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin gaffed on the ability of women's bodies to avoid pregnancy in the event of a “legitimate rape.” It gets worse.

The left's war on science begins with the stats cited above: 41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. These numbers do not exactly bolster the common belief that liberals are the people of the science book. In addition, consider “cognitive creationists”—whom I define as those who accept the theory of evolution for the human body but not the brain. As Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker documents in his 2002 book The Blank Slate (Viking), belief in the mind as a tabula rasa shaped almost entirely by culture has been mostly the mantra of liberal intellectuals, who in the 1980s and 1990s led an all-out assault against evolutionary psychology via such Orwellian-named far-left groups as Science for the People, for proffering the now uncontroversial idea that human thought and behavior are at least partially the result of our evolutionary past.


ADVERTISEMENT
There is more, and recent, antiscience fare from far-left progressives, documented in the 2012 book Science Left Behind (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad.”

Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left's sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food. Try having a conversation with a liberal progressive about GMOs—genetically modified organisms—in which the words “Monsanto” and “profit” are not dropped like syllogistic bombs. Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO Real Time show on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil”) or an 11 (“f—ing evil”)? The fact is that we've been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It's the only way to feed billions of people.

Surveys show that moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science roughly equally (varying across domains), which is why scientists like E. O. Wilson and organizations like the National Center for Science Education are reaching out to moderates in both parties to rein in the extremists on evolution and climate change. Pace Barry Goldwater, extremism in the defense of liberty may not be a vice, but it is in defense of science, where facts matter more than faith—whether it comes in a religious or secular form—and where moderation in the pursuit of truth is a virtue.

This article was originally published with the title "The Left's War on Science" in Scientific American 308, 2, 76 (February 2013)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,209 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,191
Outra sobre a Guerra da Esquerda contra a Ciência

The Real War on Science

The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress.

John Tierney


My liberal friends sometimes ask me why I don’t devote more of my science journalism to the sins of the Right. It’s fine to expose pseudoscience on the left, they say, but why aren’t you an equal-opportunity debunker? Why not write about conservatives’ threat to science?

My friends don’t like my answer: because there isn’t much to write about. Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the “party of science.” But I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the Left’s indictments, including Chris Mooney’s bestseller, The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?

Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed? What scientific debate has been silenced? Yes, the book reveals that Republican creationists exist, but they don’t affect the biologists or anthropologists studying evolution. Yes, George W. Bush refused federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but that hardly put a stop to it (and not much changed after Barack Obama reversed the policy). Mooney rails at scientists and politicians who oppose government policies favored by progressives like himself, but if you’re looking for serious damage to the enterprise of science, he offers only three examples.

All three are in his first chapter, during Mooney’s brief acknowledgment that leftists “here and there” have been guilty of “science abuse.” First, there’s the Left’s opposition to genetically modified foods, which stifled research into what could have been a second Green Revolution to feed Africa. Second, there’s the campaign by animal-rights activists against medical researchers, whose work has already been hampered and would be devastated if the activists succeeded in banning animal experimentation. Third, there’s the resistance in academia to studying the genetic underpinnings of human behavior, which has cut off many social scientists from the recent revolutions in genetics and neuroscience. Each of these abuses is far more significant than anything done by conservatives, and there are plenty of others. The only successful war on science is the one waged by the Left.

The danger from the Left does not arise from stupidity or dishonesty; those failings are bipartisan. Some surveys show that Republicans, particularly libertarians, are more scientifically literate than Democrats, but there’s plenty of ignorance all around. Both sides cherry-pick research and misrepresent evidence to support their agendas. Whoever’s in power, the White House plays politics in appointing advisory commissions and editing the executive summaries of their reports. Scientists of all ideologies exaggerate the importance of their own research and seek results that will bring them more attention and funding.

But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.

The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices. In a classic study of peer review, 75 psychologists were asked to referee a paper about the mental health of left-wing student activists. Some referees saw a version of the paper showing that the student activists’ mental health was above normal; others saw different data, showing it to be below normal. Sure enough, the more liberal referees were more likely to recommend publishing the paper favorable to the left-wing activists. When the conclusion went the other way, they quickly found problems with its methodology.

Scientists try to avoid confirmation bias by exposing their work to peer review by critics with different views, but it’s increasingly difficult for liberals to find such critics. Academics have traditionally leaned left politically, and many fields have essentially become monocultures, especially in the social sciences, where Democrats now outnumber Republicans by at least 8 to 1. (In sociology, where the ratio is 44 to 1, a student is much likelier to be taught by a Marxist than by a Republican.) The lopsided ratio has led to another well-documented phenomenon: people’s beliefs become more extreme when they’re surrounded by like-minded colleagues. They come to assume that their opinions are not only the norm but also the truth.

Groupthink has become so routine that many scientists aren’t even aware of it. Social psychologists, who have extensively studied conscious and unconscious biases against out-groups, are quick to blame these biases for the underrepresentation of women or minorities in the business world and other institutions. But they’ve been mostly oblivious to their own diversity problem, which is vastly larger. Democrats outnumber Republicans at least 12 to 1 (perhaps 40 to 1) in social psychology, creating what Jonathan Haidt calls a “tribal-moral community” with its own “sacred values” about what’s worth studying and what’s taboo.

“Morality binds and blinds,” says Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University and author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. “Having common values makes a group cohesive, which can be quite useful, but it’s the last thing that should happen to a scientific field. Progressivism, especially anti-racism, has become a fundamentalist religion, complete with anti-blasphemy laws.”

Last year, one of the leading scientific journals, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, published an article by Haidt and five colleagues documenting their profession’s lack of ideological diversity. It was accompanied by commentaries from 63 other social scientists, virtually all of whom, even the harshest critics, accepted the authors’ conclusion that the lack of political diversity has harmed the science of social psychology. The authors and the commentators pointed to example after example of how the absence of conservatives has blinded researchers to flaws in their work, particularly when studying people’s ideology and morality.

Democrats outnumber Republicans at least 12 to 1 (perhaps 40 to 1) in social psychology.

The narrative that Republicans are antiscience has been fed by well-publicized studies reporting that conservatives are more close-minded and dogmatic than liberals are. But these conclusions have been based on questions asking people how strongly they cling to traditional morality and religion—dogmas that matter a lot more to conservatives than to liberals. A few other studies—not well-publicized—have shown that liberals can be just as close-minded when their own beliefs, such as their feelings about the environment or Barack Obama, are challenged.

Social psychologists have often reported that conservatives are more prejudiced against other social groups than liberals are. But one of Haidt’s coauthors, Jarret Crawford of the College of New Jersey, recently noted a glaring problem with these studies: they typically involve attitudes toward groups that lean left, like African-Americans and communists. When Crawford (who is a liberal) did his own study involving a wider range of groups, he found that prejudice is bipartisan. Liberals display strong prejudice against religious Christians and other groups they perceive as right of center.

Conservatives have been variously pathologized as unethical, antisocial, and irrational simply because they don’t share beliefs that seem self-evident to liberals. For instance, one study explored ethical decision making by asking people whether they would formally support a female colleague’s complaint of sexual harassment. There was no way to know if the complaint was justified, but anyone who didn’t automatically side with the woman was put in the unethical category. Another study asked people whether they believed that “in the long run, hard work usually brings a better life”—and then classified a yes answer as a “rationalization of inequality.” Another study asked people if they agreed that “the Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them”—a view held by many experts in resource economics, but the psychologists pathologized it as a “denial of environmental realities.”

To combat these biases, more than 150 social scientists have joined Heterodox Academy, a group formed by Haidt and his coauthors to promote ideological diversity among scholars. That’s a good start, but they’re nowhere close to solving the problem. Even if social-science departments added a few conservatives, they’d still be immersed in progressive academic communities becoming less tolerant of debate because of pressure from campus activists and federal bureaucrats enforcing an ever-expanding interpretation of Title IX. And their work would still be filtered to the public by reporters who lean left, too—that’s why the press has promoted the Republican-war-on-science myth. When Obama diplomatically ducked a question on the campaign trail about the age of the Earth (“I don’t presume to know”), the press paid no attention. When Marco Rubio later did the same thing (“I’m not a scientist”), he was lambasted as a typical Republican ignoramus determined to bring back the Dark Ages.

The combination of all these pressures from the Left has repeatedly skewed science over the past half-century. In 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a paper presciently warning of the dangers for black children growing up in single-parent homes, it was greeted with such hostility—he was blaming the victim, critics said—that the topic became off-limits among liberals, stymying public discussion and research for decades into one of the most pressing problems facing minority children. Similarly, liberal advocates have worked to suppress reporting on the problems of children raised by gay parents or on any drawbacks of putting young children in day care. In 1991, a leading family psychologist, Louise Silverstein, published an article in the American Psychologist urging her colleagues to “refuse to undertake any more research that looks for the negative consequences of other-than-mother-care.”

The Left’s most rigid taboos involve the biology of race and gender, as the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker chronicles in The Blank Slate. The book takes its title from Pinker’s term for the dogma that “any differences we see among races, ethnic groups, sexes, and individuals come not from differences in their innate constitution but from differences in their experiences.” The dogma constricts researchers’ perspective—“No biology, please, we’re social scientists”—and discourages debate, in and out of academia. Early researchers in sociobiology faced vitriolic attacks from prominent scientists like Stephen Jay Gould, who accused them of racism and sexism for studying genetic influences on behavior.

Studying IQ has been a risky career move since the 1970s, when researchers like Arthur Jensen and Richard Herrnstein had to cancel lectures (and sometimes hire bodyguards) because of angry protesters accusing them of racism. Government funding dried up, forcing researchers in IQ and behavioral genetics to rely on private donors, who in the 1980s financed the renowned Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Leftists tried to cut off that funding in the 1990s, when the University of Delaware halted the IQ research of Linda Gottfredson and Jan Blits for two years by refusing to let them accept a foundation’s grant; the research proceeded only after an arbitrator ruled that their academic freedom had been violated.

The work of left-wing population alarmists inspired China’s monstrous one-child policy, which included forced abortions and infanticide. (JULIO ETCHART/ULLSTEIN BILD/GRANGER, NYC — ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.)
The work of left-wing population alarmists inspired China’s monstrous one-child policy, which included forced abortions and infanticide. (JULIO ETCHART/ULLSTEIN BILD/GRANGER, NYC — ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.)

The Blank Slate dogma has perpetuated a liberal version of creationism: the belief that there has been no evolution in modern humans since they left their ancestral homeland in Africa some 50,000 years ago. Except for a few genetic changes in skin color and other superficial qualities, humans everywhere are supposedly alike because there hasn’t been enough time for significant differences to evolve in their brains and innate behavior. This belief was plausible when biologists assumed that evolution was a slow process, but the decoding of the human genome has disproved it, as Nicholas Wade (a former colleague of mine at the New York Times) reported in his 2015 book, A Troublesome Inheritance.

“Human evolution has been recent, copious and regional,” writes Wade, noting that at least 8 percent of the human genome has changed since the departure from Africa. The new analysis has revealed five distinguishable races that evolved in response to regional conditions: Africans, East Asians, Caucasians, the natives of the Americas, and the peoples of Australia and Papua New Guinea. Yet social scientists go on denying the very existence of races. The American Anthropological Association declares race to be “a human invention” that is “about culture, not biology.” The American Sociological Association calls race a “social construct.” Even biologists and geneticists are afraid of the R-word. More than 100 of them sent a letter to the New York Times denouncing Wade’s book as inaccurate, yet they refused to provide any examples of his mistakes. They apparently hadn’t bothered to read the book because they accused Wade of linking racial variations to IQ scores—a link that his book specifically rejected.

Some genetic differences are politically acceptable on the left, such as the biological basis for homosexuality, which was deemed plausible by 70 percent of sociologists in a recent survey. But that same survey found that only 43 percent accepted a biological explanation for male-female differences in spatial skills and communication. How could the rest of the sociologists deny the role of biology? It was no coincidence that these doubters espoused the most extreme left-wing political views and the strongest commitment to a feminist perspective. To dedicated leftists and feminists, it doesn’t matter how much evidence of sexual differences is produced by developmental psychologists, primatologists, neuroscientists, and other researchers. Any disparity between the sexes—or, at least, any disparity unfavorable to women—must be blamed on discrimination and other cultural factors.

Former Harvard president Lawrence Summers found this out the hard way at an academic conference where he dared to discuss the preponderance of men among professors of mathematics and physical sciences at elite universities. While acknowledging that women faced cultural barriers, like discrimination and the pressures of family responsibilities, Summers hypothesized that there might be other factors, too, such as the greater number of men at the extreme high end in tests measuring mathematical ability and other traits. Males’ greater variability in aptitude is well established—it’s why there are more male dunces as well as geniuses—but scientific accuracy was no defense against the feminist outcry. The controversy forced Summers to apologize and ultimately contributed to his resignation. Besides violating the Blank Slate taboo, Summers had threatened an academic cottage industry kept alive by the myth that gender disparities in science are due to discrimination.

This industry, supported by more than $200 million from the National Science Foundation, persists despite overwhelming evidence—from experiments as well as extensive studies of who gets academic jobs and research grants—that a female scientist is treated as well as or better than an equally qualified male. In a rigorous set of five experiments published last year, the female candidate was preferred two-to-one over an equivalent male. The main reason for sexual disparities in some fields is a difference in interests: from an early age, more males are more interested in fields like physics and engineering, while more females are interested in fields like biology and psychology (where most doctorates go to women).

On the whole, American women are doing much better than men academically—they receive the majority of undergraduate and graduate degrees—yet education researchers and federal funders have focused for decades on the few fields in science where men predominate. It was bad enough that the National Science Foundation’s grants paid for workshops featuring a game called Gender Bias Bingo and skits in which arrogant male scientists mistreat smarter female colleagues. But then, these workshops nearly became mandatory when Democrats controlled Congress in 2010. In response to feminist lobbying, the House passed a bill (which fortunately died in the Senate) requiring federal science agencies to hold “gender equity” workshops for the recipients of research grants.

It might seem odd that the “party of science” would be dragging researchers out of the lab to be reeducated in games of Gender Bias Bingo. But politicians will always care more about pleasing constituencies than advancing science.

And that brings us to the second great threat from the Left: its long tradition of mixing science and politics. To conservatives, the fundamental problem with the Left is what Friedrich Hayek called the fatal conceit: the delusion that experts are wise enough to redesign society. Conservatives distrust central planners, preferring to rely on traditional institutions that protect individuals’ “natural rights” against the power of the state. Leftists have much more confidence in experts and the state. Engels argued for “scientific socialism,” a redesign of society supposedly based on the scientific method. Communist intellectuals planned to mold the New Soviet Man. Progressives yearned for a society guided by impartial agencies unconstrained by old-fashioned politics and religion. Herbert Croly, founder of the New Republic and a leading light of progressivism, predicted that a “better future would derive from the beneficent activities of expert social engineers who would bring to the service of social ideals all the technical resources which research could discover.”

This was all very flattering to scientists, one reason that so many of them leaned left. The Right cited scientific work when useful, but it didn’t enlist science to remake society—it still preferred guidance from traditional moralists and clerics. The Left saw scientists as the new high priests, offering them prestige, money, and power. The power too often corrupted. Over and over, scientists yielded to the temptation to exaggerate their expertise and moral authority, sometimes for horrendous purposes.

Drawing on research into genetics and animal breeding from scientists at Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, and other leading universities, the eugenics movement of the 1920s made plans for improving the human population. Professors taught eugenics to their students and worked with Croly and other progressives eager to breed a smarter society, including Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Margaret Sanger. Eventually, other scientists—notably, in England—exposed the shoddy research and assumptions of the eugenicists, but not before the involuntary sterilization or castration of more than 35,000 Americans. Even after Hitler used eugenics to justify killing millions, the Left didn’t lose its interest in controlling human breeding.

Eugenicist thinking was revived by scientists convinced that the human species had exceeded the “carrying capacity” of its ecosystem. The most prominent was Paul Ehrlich, whose scientific specialty was the study of butterflies. Undeterred by his ignorance of agriculture and economics, he published confident predictions of imminent global famine in The Population Bomb (1968). Agricultural economists dismissed his ideas, but the press reverently quoted Ehrlich and other academics who claimed to have scientifically determined that the Earth was “overpopulated.” In the journal Science, ecologist Garrett Hardin argued that “freedom to breed will bring ruin to all.” Ehrlich, who, at one point, advocated supplying American helicopters and doctors to a proposed program of compulsory sterilization in India, joined with physicist John Holdren in arguing that the U.S. Constitution would permit population control, including limits on family size and forced abortions. Ehrlich and Holdren calmly analyzed the merits of various technologies, such as adding sterilants to public drinking water, and called for a “planetary regime” to control population and natural resources around the world.

Environmental science has become so politicized that its myths endure even after they’ve been disproved.

Their ideas went nowhere in the United States, but they inspired one of the worst human rights violations of the twentieth century, in China: the one-child policy, resulting in coerced abortion and female infanticide. China struggles today with a dangerously small number of workers to support its aging population. The intellectual godfathers of this atrocity, had they been conservatives, surely would have been ostracized. But even after his predictions turned out to be wildly wrong, Ehrlich went on collecting honors.

For his part, Holdren has served for the past eight years as the science advisor to President Obama, a position from which he laments that Americans don’t take his warnings on climate change seriously. He doesn’t seem to realize that public skepticism has a lot to do with the dismal track record of himself and his fellow environmentalists. There’s always an apocalypse requiring the expansion of state power. The visions of global famine were followed by more failed predictions, such as an “age of scarcity” due to vanishing supplies of energy and natural resources and epidemics of cancer and infertility caused by synthetic chemicals. In a 1976 book, The Genesis Strategy, the climatologist Stephen Schneider advocated a new fourth branch of the federal government (with experts like himself serving 20-year terms) to deal with the imminent crisis of global cooling. He later switched to become a leader in the global-warming debate.

Environmental science has become so politicized that its myths endure even after they’ve been disproved. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring set off decades of chemophobia with its scary anecdotes and bad science, like her baseless claim that DDT was causing cancer in humans and her vision of a mass avian die-off (the bird population was actually increasing as she wrote). Yet Silent Spring is taught in high school and college courses as a model of science writing, with no mention of the increased death tolls from malaria in countries that restricted DDT, or of other problems—like the spread of dengue and the Zika virus—exacerbated by needless fears of insecticides. Similarly, the Left’s zeal to find new reasons to regulate has led to pseudoscientific scaremongering about “Frankenfoods,” transfats, BPA in plastic, mobile phones, electronic cigarettes, power lines, fracking, and nuclear energy.

The health establishment spent decades advocating a low-salt diet for everyone (and pressuring the food industry to reduce salt) without any proof that it prolonged lives. When researchers finally got around to doing small clinical trials, they found that the low-salt diet did not prolong lives. If anything, it was associated with higher mortality. The worst debacle in health science involved dietary fat, which became an official public enemy in the 1970s, thanks to a few self-promoting scientists and politically savvy activists who allied with Democrats in Congress led by George McGovern and Henry Waxman. The supposed link between high-fat diets and heart disease was based on cherry-picked epidemiology, but the federal government endorsed it by publishing formal “dietary goals for the United States” and creating the now-infamous food pyramid that encouraged Americans to replace fat in their diets with carbohydrates. The public-health establishment devoted its efforts and funding to demonstrating the benefits of low-fat diets. But the low-fat diet repeatedly flunked clinical trials, and the government’s encouragement of carbohydrates probably contributed to rising rates of obesity and diabetes, as journalists Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz have chronicled in their books. (See “The Washington Diet,” Spring 2011.)

The dietary-fat debate is a case study in scientific groupthink—and in the Left’s techniques for enforcing political orthodoxy. From the start, prominent nutrition researchers disputed fat’s link to heart disease and criticized Washington for running a dietary experiment on the entire population. But they were dismissed as outliers who’d been corrupted by corporate money. At one hearing, Senator McGovern rebutted the skeptics by citing a survey showing that low-fat diet recommendations were endorsed by 92 percent of “the world’s leading doctors.” Federal bureaucrats and activists smeared skeptics by leaking information to the press about their consulting work with the food industry. One skeptic, Robert Olson of Washington University, protested that during his career, he had received $250,000 from the food industry versus more than $10 million from federal agencies, including ones promoting low-fat diets. If he could be bought, he said, it would be more accurate to call him “a tool of government.” As usual, though, the liberal press focused only on corporate money.

These same sneer-and-smear techniques predominate in the debate over climate change. President Obama promotes his green agenda by announcing that “the debate is settled,” and he denounces “climate deniers” by claiming that 97 percent of scientists believe that global warming is dangerous. His statements are false. While the greenhouse effect is undeniably real, and while most scientists agree that there has been a rise in global temperatures caused in some part by human emissions of carbon dioxide, no one knows how much more warming will occur this century or whether it will be dangerous. How could the science be settled when there have been dozens of computer models of how carbon dioxide affects the climate? And when most of the models overestimated how much warming should have occurred by now? These failed predictions, as well as recent research into the effects of water vapor on temperatures, have caused many scientists to lower their projections of future warming. Some “luke-warmists” suggest that future temperature increases will be relatively modest and prove to be a net benefit, at least in the short term.

The long-term risks are certainly worth studying, but no matter whose predictions you trust, climate science provides no justification for Obama’s green agenda—or anyone else’s agenda. Even if it were somehow proved that high-end estimates for future global warming are accurate, that wouldn’t imply that Greens have the right practical solution for reducing carbon emissions—or that we even need to reduce those emissions. Policies for dealing with global warming vary according to political beliefs, economic assumptions, social priorities, and moral principles. Would regulating carbon dioxide stifle economic growth and give too much power to the state? Is it moral to impose sacrifices on poor people to keep temperatures a little cooler for their descendants, who will presumably be many times richer? Are there more important problems to address first? These aren’t questions with scientifically correct answers.

Yet many climate researchers are passing off their political opinions as science, just as Obama does, and they’re even using that absurdly unscientific term “denier” as if they were priests guarding some eternal truth. Science advances by continually challenging and testing hypotheses, but the modern Left has become obsessed with silencing heretics. In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch last year, 20 climate scientists urged her to use federal racketeering laws to prosecute corporations and think tanks that have “deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.” Similar assaults on free speech are endorsed in the Democratic Party’s 2016 platform, which calls for prosecution of companies that make “misleading” statements about “the scientific reality of climate change.” A group of Democratic state attorneys general coordinated an assault on climate skeptics by subpoenaing records from fossil-fuel companies and free-market think tanks, supposedly as part of investigations to prosecute corporate fraud. Such prosecutions may go nowhere in court—they’re blatant violations of the First Amendment—but that’s not their purpose. By demanding a decade’s worth of e-mail and other records, the Democratic inquisitors and their scientist allies want to harass climate dissidents and intimidate their donors.

Just as in the debate over dietary fat, these dissidents get smeared in the press as corporate shills—but once again, the money flows almost entirely the other way. The most vocal critics of climate dogma are a half-dozen think tanks that together spend less than $15 million annually on environmental issues. The half-dozen major green groups spend more than $500 million, and the federal government spends $10 billion on climate research and technology to reduce emissions. Add it up, and it’s clear that scientists face tremendous pressure to support the “consensus” on reducing carbon emissions, as Judith Curry, a climatologist at Georgia Tech, testified last year at a Senate hearing.

“This pressure comes not only from politicians but also from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists,” Curry said. “This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity—without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.”

That’s the ultimate casualty in the Left’s war: scientists’ reputations. Bad research can be exposed and discarded, but bad reputations endure. Social scientists are already regarded in Washington as an arm of the Democratic Party, so their research is dismissed as partisan even when it’s not, and some Republicans have tried (unsuccessfully) to cut off all social-science funding. The physical sciences still enjoy bipartisan support, but that’s being eroded by the green politicking, and climate scientists’ standing will plummet if the proclaimed consensus turns out to be wrong.

To preserve their integrity, scientists should avoid politics and embrace the skeptical rigor that their profession requires. They need to start welcoming conservatives and others who will spot their biases and violate their taboos. Making these changes won’t be easy, but the first step is simple: stop pretending that the threats to science are coming from the Right. Look in the other direction—or in the mirror.

John Tierney is a contributing editor of City Journal, coauthor of Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Strength, and a contributing science columnist for the New York Times, where he previously wrote “The Big City” column.
 

·
lost and found
Joined
·
12,397 Posts
Maravilhoso esses artigos, MOPC. Muito obrigado por compartilhar. Esse segundo artigo é espetacular.
 

·
Visitante desde 2002
Joined
·
2,879 Posts
Me desculpe mas a Biblia não diz nada que Nimrod casou com alguém chamada de "Samíramis"
Você nem se quer prestou atenção nesse vídeo importantíssimo e por isso não entendeu nada! Você sempre faz isso, ignora o que é apresentado pra interpretar as coisas por conta própria! :lol:

Cuxe, filho de Cam e neto de Noé, se casou com Semíramis. Ninrode era filho deles.
A Bíblia apenas não menciona Semíramis diretamente, com seu nome, mas historiadores já comprovaram que ela existiu.

São as mesmas figuras presentes em religiões que alguns consideram como sendo as falsas. Semíramis segurando seu filho Ninrode. Eles apenas mudaram de nome e trocaram de roupa entre as imagens dessas várias religiões, que são na verdade uma só:
 

·
Visitante desde 2002
Joined
·
2,879 Posts
Mais Semíramis e Nimrodes disfarçados por várias civilizações pelo mundo, entre várias religiões (que essas são na verdade uma só) e em períodos diferentes da história da humanidade:



1) Ankh Nes Meryre e filho Pepi. 2) Cyprus. 3) Madonna Guanyin, deusa da misericórdia 4) Matrika de Tanesara da India 5) Yasoda e Krishna. 6) Mãe e Filho 2000-1850 B.C. 7) Mexico, Jalisco 200 B.C.- 500 A.D. 8) Maya. 9) Mexico, Colima 200 B.C.- 500A.D. 10) Mykene, Grécia 11) deusa Sun , Arinna. 12) Virgem Maria
http://mapeamentoespiritual.blogspot.com/2009/10/rainha-dos-ceus-principado-demoniaco.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,209 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,200
O video diz que Nimrod se casou com a propria mãe, essa tal de "Semiramis".

A Biblia não diz que Nimrod se casou com Semiramis nem com qqer pessoa, apenas que ele construiu a torre de Babel. Não menciona nenhuma mulher dele. (acabei de rechecar na Internet pq não sou memorizador de Biblia).

Então o video mente.
 
3181 - 3200 of 3226 Posts
Top