Brandon, It sounds like you want to combine marriage with friendship when they should be seperated.
why should they be seperated?
Posted 08 December 2005 - 10:47 PM
Brandon, It sounds like you want to combine marriage with friendship when they should be seperated.
Posted 14 December 2005 - 12:18 AM
Posted 18 December 2005 - 04:37 AM
Why indeed? Or, if you do separate them, what do you have left, in either of them?Why should they be separated?Brandon, It sounds like you want to combine marriage with friendship when they should be separated.
Posted 07 July 2006 - 01:07 PM
Edited by william, 07 July 2006 - 03:51 PM.
Posted 07 July 2006 - 07:50 PM
I will refrain from commenting on the religious rhetoric you bring up, because you know how I feel on it. As far as the study you site, it makes no mention of whether this is a causation or simply a correlation. I don't believe (of course I could be wrong) that it has ever been shown that marriage causes good health, only that it is correlated with good health.Put me down for preserving and strengthening monogamous marriage and the family for its positive effects on longevity. Research has shown “[t]he benefits of a healthy marriage include lower rates of disease, a longer life span and a greater sense of well-being.” See, for example, http://www.mayoclini...arriage/MH00108.
Posted 07 July 2006 - 08:02 PM
Wow, I'd never looked at it that way -- interesting argument!The types of people that decide to live together unmarried might be lower income (in general), or more likely to be homeless, or any number of things.
Posted 07 July 2006 - 09:28 PM
Posted 07 July 2006 - 10:19 PM
I will not comment on the religious rhetoric. You do yourself a disservice, I think, by continuing to bring it up. Others might totally disregard your entire post because of such comments.Thanks for responding Live Forever. Believe it or not, I was just about to PM you and ask you for an amen. I wish you would've commented on the rest though.
Absolutely not. You can not infer things that are not expressly tested and results stated. That is where a lot of people's confusion comes in when it comes to analyzing (or reporters reporting on) studies.I don't have any college degree in anything, but can't we pretty much infer causation when there's a strong enough correlation?
Again, correlation does not equal causation. I am not arguing that people in marriages are not healthier, just that I don't think someone that is unmarried is necessarily less healthy because they aren't married. I think you can be just as happy, healthy, etc. being unmarried as married, and I have not seen any evidence yet that this untrue.To me it seems highly likely that a strong, healthy marriage under ideal conditions would substantially contribute to a person's health and longevity. Here's another recent article on this subject that supports what I say you can checkout at http://www.nih.gov/n...005/story01.htm.
I don't see what this has to do with marriage.I also wish John Schloendorn would've commented on my post where I ask if it isn't "possible that the anti-aging therapies currently being worked on by Aubrey De Grey, and others, might only increase life spans by maybe 50 to a 100 years, in the beginning stages, and need to be enhanced through strict dietary practices combined with improved social living practices such as stronger marriages and families practiced under communal conditions?" Being one of those bioengineers engaged in such research, it would be helpful if he could tell me whether or not I can safely make that kind of statement and not just ask it as a question.
Posted 07 July 2006 - 10:50 PM
In general, SENS assumes that aging results from irreversible types of molecular damage that accumulate over time. It proposes to reverse aging by repairing those damage-types from the outside. If there were a way to slow the accumulation of such damage, this would be very beneficial for the aging patient and synergistic with SENS interventions.I also wish John Schloendorn would've commented on my post where I ask if it isn't "possible that the anti-aging therapies currently being worked on by Aubrey De Grey, and others, might only increase life spans by maybe 50 to a 100 years, in the beginning stages, and need to be enhanced through strict dietary practices combined with improved social living practices such as stronger marriages and families practiced under communal conditions?"
Posted 08 July 2006 - 01:01 AM
Posted 08 July 2006 - 01:05 AM
Posted 08 July 2006 - 01:29 AM
That is your prerogative, just know that you will not be taken as seriously as you might otherwise.Live Forever, I realize religion may turn some people off as you say; however, I strongly believe the Bible has something important to say on longevity that researchers need to take it into serious consideration.
Poppycock. You can't make these types of blanket statements without providing references to the studies. (peer reviewed) That might fly some places, but this is (generally) a group of people for which proof is required. Please see the thread on how prayer does not help heart patients to see just one example of how I think prayer provides no benefit. (perhaps a placebo effect in some cases, but not so in double blind studies)I'm sure you've read articles in mainstream publications about medical research on the role of religion and prayer in healing. And, it was just on television a couple of weeks ago about the role religion plays in helping obese people lose weight. Also, those 12 step programs for various addictions and emotional problems all rely on a God concept or "higher power" for success.
You seem to be mixing and matching concepts here to suit your individual viewpoint. You seem to be saying that since something is untestable, scientists (and others) should just go ahead and readily believe it. If that is what you contend, I very much disagree. In fact, just the opposite should be true: scientists (and others) should make it a habit of not believing everything that they hear unless adequate proof is given.What if there's no possible way available, at the moment, to scientifically test for exact causation? Shouldn't we just proceed as if causation were proved when the correlation is strong enough and the importance of the matter being researched is high? I thought that's how scientists do it when exact testing isn't possible.
It says if people are not happy in their marriage, their health suffers. You said people in marriages are always healthier. Thus, it is against what you are saying. People could misconstrue what you were saying to mean that all marriage is good and people should stay in it rather than be single.The first link you gave me seemed to support exactly what I'm trying to say. I don't see any contradictions in it. Thanks for providing it. I might be able to use it in the near future.
Yes, I didn't really believe the results of the study any more than the one you provided me, I was trying to show you that marriage might in fact have detrimental effects, and that some people might be better off staying out of marriage. The links to the reports were merely meant to stimulate thought, nothing else. I could probably find a report saying whatever I wanted if I looked hard enough. The overarching theme of my comments was to say that those who choose not to marry could be just as healthy as those choosing to marry, that is all. I was trying to say that you (or others) need to either 1) provide more proof than a correlation study or 2) think twice before posting it, because it is not that sound of proof.The second link on "getting married may be bad for men's health but good for women" I didn't understand too well. The research seemed old. I would probably question the research methods used or the study sample for flaws if I was in a position to do so.
Did you notice they pointed to an earlier study that said "men and women are happier if they marry"?
I suppose that depends on the type of therapy being offered. I will not speculate into the nature of the therapies that will be available before they are at least in some form of testing, or trials. I don't know what types of therapies will be available, but they very well could take care of both of the individuals you mention.On your last quote where you say "I don't see what this has to do with marriage", the way I've been looking at it anything that contributes to healthy living and longer life spans today will probably make it easier for those anti-aging therapies being worked on to be more effective when they get here. Wouldn't a person who is 60 years old and in very good health from an ideal marriage and family, strict vegetarianism, calorie restriction, periodic fasting, etc., benefit more from any new anti-aging therapy than a 60 year old person in poor health from lack of a good marriage and family life, bad eating habits, substance abuse, alcoholism, smoking, etc.?
A very resounding YES! But, I don't think you are required to be married to do so.Shouldn't we try to live as healthy as possible while waiting for the anti-aging therapies to arrive?
Posted 08 July 2006 - 04:37 PM
Posted 08 July 2006 - 06:31 PM
I will say only that I really hope that I wouldn't be able to find any other studies on the subject. Researchers don't need to be spending their time and money on this poppycock. I will not respond further to the above, because it is not the proper forum. You will not bait me into a religious debate here, william. You really, really need to quit stealing threads, it is getting very annoying. Please stick to the topic that the thread was designed for (marriage). If you want to discuss your own rants, do it in a thread designed for that specific rant, or create your own thread.Live Forever, I should be taken seriously on religious matters. Scientifically minded people need to consider religion as a part of the research they're engaged in. Have you ever heard of a publication called "Research News and Opportunities In Science And Theology"? They're seeing the role of God and religion in science more and more these days. You've caused me to dig up the two old 2002 issues of the publication I had buried in my boxes of paperwork. I'm going to see if I can't find the websites they frequently mention in the articles.
I looked at the thread and the link you gave about prayer and healing. Remember, that was only one single piece of research finding prayer wasn't of any medical benefit. Can you find more? The last post in the thread by cosmos was very helpful as it provided a link to the John Templeton Foundation which supports this type of research. They're mentioned in those two aforementioned publications I have.
Skeptical does not equal negative. You can be skeptical of something, and require proof of that thing, and not have a negative view of said thing. No, scientists should not advocate anything other than what has been proven. Like I said, there are a bunch of things that should be done before marrying that would extend one's life. (proper eating, supplements, doctor visits, donations to things like MPrize, etc.)I think you misunderstood me when I asked the question "shouldn't we just proceed as if causation were proved when the correlation is strong enough and the importance of the matter being researched is high?" Let me restate the question. Shouldn't scientists take a positive view and advocate stronger marriages for healthier and longer life spans when theirs and others research shows a sufficiently strong correlation but not an exact cause and effect? It seems so wrong to take the negative, skeptical view on something as important as this.
You can investigate it all you want, I don't think most people would want to live like that. I know I sure don't want to move out of the city into a commune or anything.I'm for advocating that people strengthen their marriages and family life at all costs and that utopian visions of the ideal conditions for practicing marriage and family, such as communal living according to Biblical standards, be investigated and discussed.
That might be wise. I don't know what you are inferring by "negative ways of thinking", but I definitely agree that addictions to drugs are not a healthy way to live, and if someone was wanting to quit that addiction, they might require counseling to do so.I'm very happy that you are for living as healthy as possible while waiting for those anti-aging therapies to get here. Do you think some people might be persuaded to break unhealthy living habits - and negative ways of thinking - in order to prepare themselves for the anti-aging therapies? Maybe addictions counselors should consider it as a part of their strategy. What do you think?
Posted 08 July 2006 - 07:48 PM
Posted 08 July 2006 - 08:05 PM
I am not trying to sneak away from anything, only trying to stay on topic. As hard as it may be for you to believe, religious poppycock is not the favorite subject of everyone here. In fact, I would say you are in the minority. You don't have to bring it up in every post you make, there are some subjects that can be discussed without bringing religion up. (perhaps not for you, I don't know)Come on Live Forever, you're trying to sneak away from me again. The religion I'm trying to discuss applies to strengthening marriage and family as it pertains to health and longevity. These are matters of concern to the immortality Institute. Am I right?
I would do a lot of things to live to 120-150. Bring me the proof, and we will talk further.If it was scientifically proven that the only way you could increase your life span from 120 to 150 years would be by living communally in a particular way, you still wouldn't live communally in the required way?
Posted 09 July 2006 - 01:15 AM
Edited by william, 09 July 2006 - 09:46 AM.
Posted 28 February 2020 - 02:38 PM
why do i get happier when my family leaves the house? its like when they are present they bring my consciousness down to theirs or because there is more of them and one of me their depressive mode etc overpowers mine mind. dont get me wrong they are my family I have to love them (joking I do love them, or am I?) but they are a pain in the ass so I dont understand why I care about them so much......hm.. This is why I think death is important to human beings and living with the same family for million of years without dying just seems off. That is why im against infinite longevity but perhaps a few hundred years of living would be better or so.
Edited by kurdishfella, 28 February 2020 - 02:38 PM.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users