Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I have to agree, it is a scapegoat. But since Barkey brought up the original notion, I'm wthinking that he could elaborate on it.
and I think I owe an apology. I misread Best Of's post as a response to the ongoing discussion between Starship Maxima and others (because it didn't have a news link, I didn't see that it was an introduction of a new topic), and I replied because I thought it was a weak connection. It wasn't until later on that I caught that it was a different topic.
Though, people did answer me when I brought up that connection, so I went on with it.
As for letting people who don't "earn it" enjoy the social safety net? Fine. Let 'em.
I am a self-employed entrepreneur. I'm busting my ass with this company of one getting it off the ground. I'm going to pay more taxes next April, probably, than I've ever paid before in my life. And I'm fine with the risk of funding deadbeats. I would rather a hundred deadbeats enjoy a new phone than a single person who didn't deserve their misfortune go without a month's rent. The cost of a deadbeat mooching off of the system for his entire freaking life is so much less than what society gains from someone who gets that opportunity and gets somewhere with it. That's a family that succeeds. That's a new business. That's kids that don't get into a life of crime. That's a consumer (and his or her dependents) who support local businesses, driving demand. That's potentially the scientist who discovers a cure for cancer or the businessman who revolutionizes an industry or the greatest statesman in the history of the country, if we roll really high. We get so much more out of this gambit when we win, by such an order of magnitude, that worrying about when we lose seems ridiculous. What does all the welfare fraud in the United States add up to? A couple million? Tens of millions? The country is flush with people who make that much in a month.
So yeah, as someone who makes it on his own, I'm fine with rolling the dice. If some of my tax dollars go to a deadbeat, big whup. It's a chance I'm willing to take.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.You guys are just too dang fast :P
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Where one begins in life should have no automatic bearing on where one ends up, but ultimately it does. Wealth brings opportunity, and a lack of wealth brings a lack of opportunity. Without opportunity, people cannot improve their position and inevitably this breeds a culture where advancement is not even considered an option.
The solution is universal access to equal opportunity; wealth must be an absolutely minimum factor in distributing the value, protection and benefits of society.
And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)If he's willfully ignorant, he's stupid. If he's ignorant but willing to learn the facts, he's not stupid; just ignorant. Hopefully he'll look the age of the Earth up somewhere and be able to give the correct answer next time.
If he knows it's 4½ billion years old but not willing to say it, he's probably lying.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.The point is that people Marco Rubio (Young Earth), Paul Broun (All Science Lies of the Devil), and Todd Akin (Women are Ducks) have no business deciding major scientific funding from the government when they deny the basics of science most children learn in fucking elementary school. 0_0
To argue otherwise is fucking asinine.
We've established here and in many other threads that belief trumps logic for many people. In Rubio's case, I suspect that a more accurate statement would be that political expediency trumps logic. Specifically, he's looking longingly at that GOP nomination in 2016, and he knows damn well that disavowing Creationism would alienate much of his base.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Rubio discussions: Please read this
. I explained the rationale behind why someone might think differently in science. Obviously not everyone here will agree with the assumptions, but the reasoning holds.
edited 19th Nov '12 2:00:58 PM by Trivialis
Trivialis: Science is science. It's not subject to faith-based arguments. You can choose not to apply scientific thinking to your model of the world, but then you aren't using science. It's that simple.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I agree that science is science. However, reality might not be.
A scientific model is a simplifications, under certain assumptions. But that's only true when those assumptions are true. The model wouldn't apply fully otherwise. People might disagree with those assumptions.
...And should this be moved now?
edited 19th Nov '12 2:10:51 PM by Trivialis
Observing reality is the entire point of science! To claim that any evidence gathered from observing reality is not actually evidence based on reality is, well, just plain unhelpful.
edited 19th Nov '12 2:14:47 PM by pagad
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.Science deals with the observable world, which is known to operate in rational ways. If irrational/supernatural events occur and are tangible to us, they would be part of science. That's the definition. Saying "what if reality isn't scientific" is a contradiction in terms.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""I agree that science is science. However, reality might not be."
science is the study of reality and therefore reality. We sometimes mess up the science but science itself is never wrong.
"A scientific model is a simplifications, under certain assumptions. But that's only true is those assumptions are true."
And those assumptions are all tested, for the most part.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?See, this is where I can't connect.
If by science, you mean "inherently observation/experimentation based, so we should look at it the same regardless of our beliefs and faiths," ok, let's go with that. That seems to be what most of you are saying. We put aside our faith and just assume non-faith view for the sake of academic science.
But then you say that truth of reality is explained by science, despite how we just agreed to put aside faith for the purpose of science and no further.
So if science = reality, and science has no faith, then reality has no faith. Then what is the role of faith?
Move now?
edited 19th Nov '12 2:19:14 PM by Trivialis
Their scientific, or rather unscientific, assumptions are affecting their policies. The "women can shut that whole thing down" assumes women can't get pregnant from rape, contrary to a history full of counter evidence, and thus leads to them denying abortion rights in the case of rape.
Their denial of climate change leads to a support of ecologically unsound drilling of oil and coal. (Note that I'm not against the oil industry, I just think it's got too many politicians in its pocket and gets subsidies as a result.)
Their insistence on teaching Creationism as scientific theory in schools leads to and is in concert with damaging policies regarding education reform.
This isn't about scientific models of reality, this is about how their particular model affects us and the rest of the country. Their incredibly unscientific platform is important because they're using it to affect policy. It doesn't matter in this case that they think differently, it matters that how they think is affecting the entire country. Which means that them denying scientific facts is bad for us in the short and long run. I don't even know why you're trying to defend them without attempting to understand that their beliefs have an affect on the rest of us because they're in positions of power.

There is no such thing as fair and square in a system that is not equitable to begin with.