goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: CHONGS on March 23, 2016, 03:25:38 PM
-
I am sure many people think certain political questions have easy answers, but what are some issues that you think require deeper insight?
-
economics
-
economics
Ok, what about economics? Can you give an example of an issue that is often considered simple, but is in fact pretty complicated?
-
economics
Ok, what about economics? Can you give an example of an issue that is often considered simple, but is in fact pretty complicated?
taxes
-
economics
Ok, what about economics? Can you give an example of an issue that is often considered simple, but is in fact pretty complicated?
taxes
Hmmm I suspect you are not being serious (and that's ok) by being so vague.
-
economics
Ok, what about economics? Can you give an example of an issue that is often considered simple, but is in fact pretty complicated?
taxes
Hmmm I suspect you are not being serious (and that's ok) by being so vague.
I thought we were just listing stuff. I do believe what I have posted.
-
economics
Ok, what about economics? Can you give an example of an issue that is often considered simple, but is in fact pretty complicated?
taxes
Hmmm I suspect you are not being serious (and that's ok) by being so vague.
I thought we were just listing stuff. I do believe what I have posted.
Oh I see, so you believe taxes are a political issue with a complicated answer. I think so too, its not so simple as "we need to lower taxes!" or "we need to raise taxes!", or "we need to close the loopholes!" or "we need a flat tax!"
-
I think nuclear energy is a tough political issue.
-
Immigration, I want to let everyone in who wants to be here, but also realize we are at a point where we can be incredibly selective and only allow in the elites.
-
economics
Ok, what about economics? Can you give an example of an issue that is often considered simple, but is in fact pretty complicated?
taxes
Hmmm I suspect you are not being serious (and that's ok) by being so vague.
I thought we were just listing stuff. I do believe what I have posted.
Oh I see, so you believe taxes are a political issue with a complicated answer. I think so too, its not so simple as "we need to lower taxes!" or "we need to raise taxes!", or "we need to close the loopholes!" or "we need a flat tax!"
Ok so do we dive more into this issue or do we just list the next one?
Honestly every major issue seems pretty easy at first but is actually complicated. If it weren't complicated then everyone would just believe that thing and it wouldn't be contentious.
-
Issues of tax incentives to get businesses to move in are complex!
-
Reforming Medicare and Medicaid, and healthcare reform in general, are probably the toughest questions because nobody wants to hear "hey, that treatment you need is expensive, and somebody has to pay for it."
-
economics
Ok, what about economics? Can you give an example of an issue that is often considered simple, but is in fact pretty complicated?
taxes
Hmmm I suspect you are not being serious (and that's ok) by being so vague.
I thought we were just listing stuff. I do believe what I have posted.
Oh I see, so you believe taxes are a political issue with a complicated answer. I think so too, its not so simple as "we need to lower taxes!" or "we need to raise taxes!", or "we need to close the loopholes!" or "we need a flat tax!"
Ok so do we dive more into this issue or do we just list the next one?
I would like to dive in, but hey let's let things flow as they may.
Honestly every major issue seems pretty easy at first but is actually complicated. If it weren't complicated then everyone would just believe that thing and it wouldn't be contentious.
I agree that most major issues are major issues because they are tough problems. I don't think, however, everyone would believe the same thing even if the issue were simple. I think humans are pretty contrarian by nature and will form "camps" based on almost anything.
I am not sure if contentiousness is necessarily related to an issue being complicated.
-
i've always thought abortion's a tough one
-
Reforming Medicare and Medicaid, and healthcare reform in general, are probably the toughest questions because nobody wants to hear "hey, that treatment you need is expensive, and somebody has to pay for it."
But it sounds like you think the answer is quite simple.
-
Issues of tax incentives to get businesses to move in are complex!
How so? What is a good argument for each side (of course there might be three or four sides, but you can condense into fewer subsets for the sake of simplicity)?
-
economics
Ok, what about economics? Can you give an example of an issue that is often considered simple, but is in fact pretty complicated?
taxes
Hmmm I suspect you are not being serious (and that's ok) by being so vague.
I thought we were just listing stuff. I do believe what I have posted.
Oh I see, so you believe taxes are a political issue with a complicated answer. I think so too, its not so simple as "we need to lower taxes!" or "we need to raise taxes!", or "we need to close the loopholes!" or "we need a flat tax!"
Ok so do we dive more into this issue or do we just list the next one?
I would like to dive in, but hey let's let things flow as they may.
Honestly every major issue seems pretty easy at first but is actually complicated. If it weren't complicated then everyone would just believe that thing and it wouldn't be contentious.
I agree that most major issues are major issues because they are tough problems. I don't think, however, everyone would believe the same thing even if the issue were simple. I think humans are pretty contrarian by nature and will form "camps" based on almost anything.
I am not sure if contentiousness is necessarily related to an issue being complicated.
Maybe provide an example of an issue that is in actuality pretty simple that people disagree on?
-
Reforming Medicare and Medicaid, and healthcare reform in general, are probably the toughest questions because nobody wants to hear "hey, that treatment you need is expensive, and somebody has to pay for it."
But it sounds like you think the answer is quite simple.
No - I don't think it's simple. And it is certainly not politically simple. There are things we can do to improve our healthcare system, but no solution is a 100% cure-all. Good treatment will still cost money, somebody is going to have to pay for it, and life is never going to be "fair" when it comes to health and mortality.
-
Issues of tax incentives to get businesses to move in are complex!
How so? What is a good argument for each side (of course there might be three or four sides, but you can condense into fewer subsets for the sake of simplicity)?
1. It is unfair to a tax paying small business to give a tax break to a big business to come into a town. Everyone should pay the same! A small business has to work much harder to compete, and giving the big guys an easier path is crony capitalism. Businesses should be treated the same, regardless of size.
2. Without the break, the bigger business wouldn't come into town at all, and with their business they bring lots of people, commerce, potential home owners, etc. The unfairness of giving them tax breaks is made up for in the increase in economic flow elsewhere in the city. The growth of cities depend on big guys moving in.
-
Maybe provide an example of an issue that is in actuality pretty simple that people disagree on?
An excellent question. I really should be clear about what is meant by a "simple" issue (as opposed to a complicated issue). I was trying to think of a contemporaneous example as I wrote my previous post. Maybe vaccinations, but I suspect I could be quite wrong. That's the fun of this thread.
-
Chingon and deep thinking? Lol, OMG no thanks.
-
Reforming Medicare and Medicaid, and healthcare reform in general, are probably the toughest questions because nobody wants to hear "hey, that treatment you need is expensive, and somebody has to pay for it."
But it sounds like you think the answer is quite simple.
No - I don't think it's simple. And it is certainly not politically simple. There are things we can do to improve our healthcare system, but no solution is a 100% cure-all. Good treatment will still cost money, somebody is going to have to pay for it, and life is never going to be "fair" when it comes to health and mortality.
So you don't think the answer is "hey, that treatment you need is expensive, somebody has to pay for it, and the public can't pay for everything so you're not going to get it"?
-
Maybe provide an example of an issue that is in actuality pretty simple that people disagree on?
An excellent question. I really should be clear about what is meant by a "simple" issue (as opposed to a complicated issue). I was trying to think of a contemporaneous example as I wrote my previous post. Maybe vaccinations, but I suspect I could be quite wrong. That's the fun of this thread.
I think vaccinations is complicated. Some people want them for a variety of reasons. Some people are against them for a variety of reasons. Some people are okay with them but don't think the government should have any say in the issue whatsoever.
-
Water boarding/etc vs human rights is a tough one. I understand that these practices may provide information that may stop a tragic event, but doing these things is below who we are as a people.
-
Why is golf and cuban butt sniffing more important than being president. I am ashamed of Obama's response to Brussels. Why is personality trumping the ability to lead and effectively govern. Ryan is the only sane person left in DC leadership.
-
Maybe provide an example of an issue that is in actuality pretty simple that people disagree on?
An excellent question. I really should be clear about what is meant by a "simple" issue (as opposed to a complicated issue). I was trying to think of a contemporaneous example as I wrote my previous post. Maybe vaccinations, but I suspect I could be quite wrong. That's the fun of this thread.
I think vaccinations is complicated. Some people want them for a variety of reasons. Some people are against them for a variety of reasons. Some people are okay with them but don't think the government should have any say in the issue whatsoever.
Is there any issue (political or not) that is not complicated then?
-
Maybe provide an example of an issue that is in actuality pretty simple that people disagree on?
An excellent question. I really should be clear about what is meant by a "simple" issue (as opposed to a complicated issue). I was trying to think of a contemporaneous example as I wrote my previous post. Maybe vaccinations, but I suspect I could be quite wrong. That's the fun of this thread.
I think vaccinations is complicated. Some people want them for a variety of reasons. Some people are against them for a variety of reasons. Some people are okay with them but don't think the government should have any say in the issue whatsoever.
Is there any issue (political or not) that is not complicated then?
That's what I'm saying...it's an issue because it's complicated. If it weren't complicated, it wouldn't be an issue.
-
I think vaccinations is incredibly simple. The government should have a say when the well being of other people is involved.
-
I think vaccinations is incredibly simple. The government should have a say when the well being of other people is involved.
Is the well being of the group more important than the rights of the individual?
-
I think the death penalty is an example of a simple political question
The influence of tax policy on the economy is a tough one
-
I think vaccinations is incredibly simple. The government should have a say when the well being of other people is involved.
Is the well being of the group more important than the rights of the individual?
I believe an individual's rights end when the encroach on the safety of others. Kids who can't be vaccinated have the right not to die of whooping cough because Timmy's mom read a blog post. Just as a child doesn't have the right to drive or is required to be educated, there are plenty of laws made to look out for a minor's safety as well as society's best interest. It seems completely arbitrary and downright dangerous to draw a line in the sand with vaccinations.
-
Vaccinations is the simplest one ITT for sure.
-
Maybe provide an example of an issue that is in actuality pretty simple that people disagree on?
An excellent question. I really should be clear about what is meant by a "simple" issue (as opposed to a complicated issue). I was trying to think of a contemporaneous example as I wrote my previous post. Maybe vaccinations, but I suspect I could be quite wrong. That's the fun of this thread.
I think vaccinations is complicated. Some people want them for a variety of reasons. Some people are against them for a variety of reasons. Some people are okay with them but don't think the government should have any say in the issue whatsoever.
Is there any issue (political or not) that is not complicated then?
That's what I'm saying...it's an issue because it's complicated. If it weren't complicated, it wouldn't be an issue.
I understand your position, suspect its perfectly reasonable, and I honestly am having a hard time coming up with a fool proof counter-example (I knew that vaccination one wouldn't be good). If the statement is that no issue is simple then I don't think I argue against that because it's always possible to (perhaps artificially) introduce complications.
-
Free speech is pretty tough. It's like, you can say whatever you want but it cannot be a threat or a lie under oath and also you cannot use your speech to silence others. If you cannot use speech to silence others then the government can silence your speech to allow others' free speech. But then it's up to the government's determination as to who is trying to silence who's speech. So it's like, who can speak freely and what can you say? And the government is like, don't worry, we'll let you know.
-
I think vaccinations is incredibly simple. The government should have a say when the well being of other people is involved.
Is the well being of the group more important than the rights of the individual?
I believe an individual's rights end when the encroach on the safety of others. Kids who can't be vaccinated have the right not to die of whooping cough because Timmy's mom read a blog post. Just as a child doesn't have the right to drive or is required to be educated, there are plenty of laws made to look out for a minor's safety as well as society's best interest. It seems completely arbitrary and downright dangerous to draw a line in the sand with vaccinations.
If you gave a vaccine to one of your twins and boom they died right there 2 seconds later, would you vaccinate the other? Should the government force you to?
-
Yes and yea
-
Wow sd pretty dumb, even for you.
-
what if the first twin turned into a goblin
-
Evil goblin or just misunderstood?
-
What if the twin blinked twice and then cried then nothing happened for 10 years but then the kid could not do math on grade level but you also were bad at math? Vaccines or chem trails?
-
What if the twin blinked twice and then cried then nothing happened for 10 years but then the kid could not do math on grade level but you also were bad at math? Vaccines or chem trails?
Yep
-
What if the twin blinked twice and then cried then nothing happened for 10 years but then the kid could not do math on grade level but you also were bad at math? Vaccines or chem trails?
Can the other twin do math?
-
What if the twin blinked twice and then cried then nothing happened for 10 years but then the kid could not do math on grade level but you also were bad at math? Vaccines or chem trails?
Can the other twin do math?
The other twin was killed by its twin after finding a loaded gun on the nightstand when they were toddlers.
-
both twins actually drowned in their pool even though their parents kept loaded guns in every room.
-
Anti-vaxxers should save politics the trouble and kill themselves
-
do we need to give some people polio and smallpox and other nasty crap so the anti vaccine crowd can be like oh um never mind we will get the shots now.
-
do we need to give some people polio and smallpox and other nasty crap so the anti vaccine crowd can be like oh um never mind we will get the shots now.
that is a tough question.
-
I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't? Your kid is safe, right?
-
#TeamEdward or #TeamJacob? That question could eff up some campaigns.
-
I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't? Your kid is safe, right?
I heard a portion of an interview on this a month or two ago. There is some sort of tipping point(% of pop) that they try to keep the vac diseases under. Evidently, if we cross that tipping point, we lose control over spreading to ppl without vac. Evidently, Whooping Cough and measles are past that tipping point in CA as of last summer.
-
I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't? Your kid is safe, right?
If your kid isn't aborted, why do you care if someone else's is? Your kid is safe
-
I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't? Your kid is safe, right?
apparently you haven't wondered enough to have an informed opinion about it.
-
I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't? Your kid is safe, right?
There's a window between when children are born and when they get fully vaccinated.
-
I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't? Your kid is safe, right?
If your kid isn't aborted, why do you care if someone else's is? Your kid is safe
Good point.
-
I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't? Your kid is safe, right?
http://www.vaccines.gov/basics/protection/
-
Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.
-
I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't? Your kid is safe, right?
I heard a portion of an interview on this a month or two ago. There is some sort of tipping point(% of pop) that they try to keep the vac diseases under. Evidently, if we cross that tipping point, we lose control over spreading to ppl without vac. Evidently, Whooping Cough and measles are past that tipping point in CA as of last summer.
Some people can't be vaccinated (other medical conditions, babies that are too young) so having all the other population vaccinated to keep the diseases in check protects those people.
-
I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't? Your kid is safe, right?
I heard a portion of an interview on this a month or two ago. There is some sort of tipping point(% of pop) that they try to keep the vac diseases under. Evidently, if we cross that tipping point, we lose control over spreading to ppl without vac. Evidently, Whooping Cough and measles are past that tipping point in CA as of last summer.
Some people can't be vaccinated (other medical conditions, babies that are too young) so having all the other population vaccinated to keep the diseases in check protects those people.
Who decides who is exempt?
-
I've always wondered, if your kid is vaccinated, then why do you care if someone else's kid isn't? Your kid is safe, right?
I heard a portion of an interview on this a month or two ago. There is some sort of tipping point(% of pop) that they try to keep the vac diseases under. Evidently, if we cross that tipping point, we lose control over spreading to ppl without vac. Evidently, Whooping Cough and measles are past that tipping point in CA as of last summer.
Some people can't be vaccinated (other medical conditions, babies that are too young) so having all the other population vaccinated to keep the diseases in check protects those people.
Who decides who is exempt?
Doctors are the ones deciding if the meds of the vac will f up the other meds someone is taking, or if it will cause issue with other conditions, just like any other sitch where the doc needs to compare what they are giving you with what your current sitch is.
-
Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.
What makes you think this is my POV?
-
If you wear a seatbelt, what do you care if anyone else does? We've got tons of laws for the sake of general welfare already. Most anti-vaxxers are simply uninformed. The rest probably have some kind of religious objection to most/all medication which I think is fine. They make up a small enough # for it to be insignificant.
-
Anti-vaccine is the perfect topic for this low rent thread.
Maybe you can take up equal gender pay or anti fracking next
-
Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.
What makes you think this is my POV?
Because you wrote it?
-
Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.
What makes you think this is my POV?
Because you wrote it?
Must I believe everything I write? Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated?
-
Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.
What makes you think this is my POV?
Because you wrote it?
Must I believe everything I write? Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated?
I think I conceded that one can make any issue complicated if they wanted to. I didn't realize you were still arguing that point.
-
Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.
What makes you think this is my POV?
Because you wrote it?
Must I believe everything I write? Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated?
I think I conceded that one can make any issue complicated if they wanted to. I didn't realize you were still arguing that point.
That's not the same as conceding that issues are inherently complicated.
-
If you wear a seatbelt, what do you care if anyone else does? We've got tons of laws for the sake of general welfare already. Most anti-vaxxers are simply uninformed. The rest probably have some kind of religious objection to most/all medication which I think is fine. They make up a small enough # for it to be insignificant.
Well someone has to clean up your dead body if it gets thrown out of your car, so maybe that is why we all have to wear seatbelts.
:dunno:
-
Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.
What makes you think this is my POV?
Because you wrote it?
Must I believe everything I write? Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated?
Someone could say the sky is blue and I could ask if that is just how they perceive it. That doesn't make the issue complicated, the sky is still blue.
-
If you wear a seatbelt, what do you care if anyone else does? We've got tons of laws for the sake of general welfare already. Most anti-vaxxers are simply uninformed. The rest probably have some kind of religious objection to most/all medication which I think is fine. They make up a small enough # for it to be insignificant.
Except they don't make up a small enough # to be insignificant.
-
Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.
What makes you think this is my POV?
Because you wrote it?
Must I believe everything I write? Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated?
Someone could say the sky is blue and I could ask if that is just how they perceive it. That doesn't make the issue complicated, the sky is still blue.
Well it's really the atmosphere causing it to appear to be blue....
-
Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.
What makes you think this is my POV?
Because you wrote it?
Must I believe everything I write? Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated?
I think I conceded that one can make any issue complicated if they wanted to. I didn't realize you were still arguing that point.
That's not the same as conceding that issues are inherently complicated.
Very true! I don't think I could agree with the statement that all issues are by definition complicated. But we would have to agree on what is meany by an issue. It could perhaps be that when you say "issue" you define it as a complicated disagreement. I, for example, think of an issue as any matter that is in dispute between different parties. It could in fact be a simple matter (like I think 2+2 is 5 and someone else thinks it's 4).
-
Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.
What makes you think this is my POV?
Because you wrote it?
Must I believe everything I write? Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated?
Someone could say the sky is blue and I could ask if that is just how they perceive it. That doesn't make the issue complicated, the sky is still blue.
Ok, but this isn't a tough or even a political issue. This is a non-issue.
-
Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.
What makes you think this is my POV?
Because you wrote it?
Must I believe everything I write? Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated?
Someone could say the sky is blue and I could ask if that is just how they perceive it. That doesn't make the issue complicated, the sky is still blue.
Additionally, blue can be objectively defined as some range of light who's wavelength is measurable in nanometers. Of course there are some fringe areas (is it blue or is it purple?), but certainly we know that red is not blue and blue is not red just by measuring the wavelength of the light. Someone couldn't point to the sky and say "that sky is not blue" nor could they say "that sky is red." Both would be incorrect using objective data.
-
Here's something I found interesting regarding the whole Jumbo Valley ordeal. Is it relevant to this thread? Maybe?
The same environmentalists who believe in evolution and are essentially godless use, for their argument to protect the valley, the argument of the native people that this valley is special to them because it's where the bear spirits are born and die. We know the environmentalists don't believe it, but they will use it to further their own cause.
-
Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.
What makes you think this is my POV?
Because you wrote it?
Must I believe everything I write? Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated?
Someone could say the sky is blue and I could ask if that is just how they perceive it. That doesn't make the issue complicated, the sky is still blue.
Additionally, blue can be objectively defined as some range of light who's wavelength is measurable in nanometers. Of course there are some fringe areas (is it blue or is it purple?), but certainly we know that red is not blue and blue is not red just by measuring the wavelength of the light. Someone couldn't point to the sky and say "that sky is not blue" nor could they say "that sky is red." Both would be incorrect using objective data.
Yes, the dress was black and blue.
-
This is mostly my mistake in poorly expressing myself.
Honestly every major issue seems pretty easy at first but is actually complicated. If it weren't complicated then everyone would just believe that thing and it wouldn't be contentious.
This statement (which is in practice overwhelmingly accurate), just sat with me oddly (actually just the last sentence). The implication (which I read into it and possibly not Emo's intent) which bothered me is that complication is a prerequisite for contentiousness. I think something can be contentious even if the underlying matter is simple, mostly because people like to be contrarian. I would almost say that being contrarian in innately human, there is likely not a single topic or statement in the world that everyone agrees on.
-
Emo's POV is quite valid for a libertarian/objectivist.
What makes you think this is my POV?
Because you wrote it?
Must I believe everything I write? Could I possibly be adding evidence to my argument that issues are inherently complicated?
Someone could say the sky is blue and I could ask if that is just how they perceive it. That doesn't make the issue complicated, the sky is still blue.
Additionally, blue can be objectively defined as some range of light who's wavelength is measurable in nanometers. Of course there are some fringe areas (is it blue or is it purple?), but certainly we know that red is not blue and blue is not red just by measuring the wavelength of the light. Someone couldn't point to the sky and say "that sky is not blue" nor could they say "that sky is red." Both would be incorrect using objective data.
Well you must not have seen the sky yesterday looking west from Wichita.
-
If you wear a seatbelt, what do you care if anyone else does? We've got tons of laws for the sake of general welfare already. Most anti-vaxxers are simply uninformed. The rest probably have some kind of religious objection to most/all medication which I think is fine. They make up a small enough # for it to be insignificant.
Except they don't make up a small enough # to be insignificant.
I'll take your word for it, but to be clear I'm strictly talking about people who do not take any drugs for religious reasons (not because they are ignorant).
-
there is likely not a single topic or statement in the world that everyone agrees on.
Disagree.
-
If you wear a seatbelt, what do you care if anyone else does? We've got tons of laws for the sake of general welfare already. Most anti-vaxxers are simply uninformed. The rest probably have some kind of religious objection to most/all medication which I think is fine. They make up a small enough # for it to be insignificant.
Except they don't make up a small enough # to be insignificant.
I'll take your word for it, but to be clear I'm strictly talking about people who do not take any drugs for religious reasons (not because they are ignorant).
Ah, I don't know then, I don't think that data exists
-
there is likely not a single topic or statement in the world that everyone agrees on.
Disagree.
:thumbs:
-
Contrarians usually just make those contrarian arguments to force the lock-step people to think more deeply about their own views or to consider alternative views.
-
Here's something I found interesting regarding the whole Jumbo Valley ordeal. Is it relevant to this thread? Maybe?
The same environmentalists who believe in evolution and are essentially godless use, for their argument to protect the valley, the argument of the native people that this valley is special to them because it's where the bear spirits are born and die. We know the environmentalists don't believe it, but they will use it to further their own cause.
Ha, you just knew emo was going to somehow steer the conversation to hunting/public land use
-
Here's something I found interesting regarding the whole Jumbo Valley ordeal. Is it relevant to this thread? Maybe?
The same environmentalists who believe in evolution and are essentially godless use, for their argument to protect the valley, the argument of the native people that this valley is special to them because it's where the bear spirits are born and die. We know the environmentalists don't believe it, but they will use it to further their own cause.
That's a pretty loaded start to the sentence. But assuming that is true, I still don't necessarily see a contradiction there. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't protect other ability to visit/venerate that area. I am not a Hindu, but I would not want to destroy some area they though was special for religious reasons. I don't think that's an incoherent position to take. But, if I then allowed for a Buddhist landmark to get demolished and said something like "it's all nonsense anyway", then I would be inconsistent.
But yes, there is also an aspect of piggybacking on using someone else's beliefs because it helps meet your own end.
-
FYI, the sky is not blue. It can be blue.
-
Here's something I found interesting regarding the whole Jumbo Valley ordeal. Is it relevant to this thread? Maybe?
The same environmentalists who believe in evolution and are essentially godless use, for their argument to protect the valley, the argument of the native people that this valley is special to them because it's where the bear spirits are born and die. We know the environmentalists don't believe it, but they will use it to further their own cause.
That's a pretty loaded start to the sentence. But assuming that is true, I still don't necessarily see a contradiction there. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't protect other ability to visit/venerate that area. I am not a Hindu, but I would not want to destroy some area they though was special for religious reasons. I don't think that's an incoherent position to take. But, if I then allowed for a Buddhist landmark to get demolished and said something like "it's all nonsense anyway", then I would be inconsistent.
But yes, there is also an aspect of piggybacking on using someone else's beliefs because it helps meet your own end.
I'm saying the same people that would mock someone for example declining vaccinations because of religious reasons would in support of their cause use someone else's religious reason. It's kind of mumped up.
-
This statement (which is in practice overwhelmingly accurate), just sat with me oddly (actually just the last sentence). The implication (which I read into it and possibly not Emo's intent) which bothered me is that complication is a prerequisite for contentiousness. I think something can be contentious even if the underlying matter is simple, mostly because people like to be contrarian. I would almost say that being contrarian in innately human, there is likely not a single topic or statement in the world that everyone agrees on.
I'm pretty sure that everyone agrees that HCGMFP is better the HCBS.
-
Here's something I found interesting regarding the whole Jumbo Valley ordeal. Is it relevant to this thread? Maybe?
The same environmentalists who believe in evolution and are essentially godless use, for their argument to protect the valley, the argument of the native people that this valley is special to them because it's where the bear spirits are born and die. We know the environmentalists don't believe it, but they will use it to further their own cause.
That's a pretty loaded start to the sentence. But assuming that is true, I still don't necessarily see a contradiction there. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't protect other ability to visit/venerate that area. I am not a Hindu, but I would not want to destroy some area they though was special for religious reasons. I don't think that's an incoherent position to take. But, if I then allowed for a Buddhist landmark to get demolished and said something like "it's all nonsense anyway", then I would be inconsistent.
But yes, there is also an aspect of piggybacking on using someone else's beliefs because it helps meet your own end.
I'm saying the same people that would mock someone for example declining vaccinations because of religious reasons would in support of their cause use someone else's religious reason. It's kind of mumped up.
Wow, I didn't get that at all initially, but it gives me good idea of where you are coming from and how you approach things.
-
What percentage of anti-vaxxers do it for religious reasons? Is this really the prime motivation? Demographic data based on the locations that are experiencing declines in vaccinations certainly don't seem to suggest that.
-
A lot of anti-vaxxers are far left.
-
A lot of anti-vaxxers are far left.
Yes. In my experience the anti-vaxxers tend to be leftist conspiratards or righty religitards.
-
Here's something I found interesting regarding the whole Jumbo Valley ordeal. Is it relevant to this thread? Maybe?
The same environmentalists who believe in evolution and are essentially godless use, for their argument to protect the valley, the argument of the native people that this valley is special to them because it's where the bear spirits are born and die. We know the environmentalists don't believe it, but they will use it to further their own cause.
That's a pretty loaded start to the sentence. But assuming that is true, I still don't necessarily see a contradiction there. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't protect other ability to visit/venerate that area. I am not a Hindu, but I would not want to destroy some area they though was special for religious reasons. I don't think that's an incoherent position to take. But, if I then allowed for a Buddhist landmark to get demolished and said something like "it's all nonsense anyway", then I would be inconsistent.
But yes, there is also an aspect of piggybacking on using someone else's beliefs because it helps meet your own end.
I'm saying the same people that would mock someone for example declining vaccinations because of religious reasons would in support of their cause use someone else's religious reason. It's kind of mumped up.
Wow, I didn't get that at all initially, but it gives me good idea of where you are coming from and how you approach things.
I didn't at first intend to tie it back to vaccinations, that was just an example.
-
Today I learned Emo wouldn't care if the neighbor was having sex with a toddler, as long as it's not babyemo
-
:rolleyes:
-
Today I learned Emo is OK with isis beheading people because it's not his head
-
A lot of anti-vaxxers are far left.
Yes. In my experience the anti-vaxxers tend to be leftist conspiratards or righty religitards.
While I generally agree it's most leftist, plenty of rightist conspiracist feel that way too, namely my commissioning boss.
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-crippling-hold-of-old-law-1459536718
good article. didn't want to start a new thread, this one will do.
-
I still struggle with interventionism
-
reminded me of this.
I'm 100% irl ok with taking these children away, allowing them to be vaccinated, and either putting their negligent parents under the burden of proving they will be good parents from now on or helping the children find loving forever homes.
https://twitter.com/sallyKP/status/1209506098690056197
-
reminded me of this.
I'm 100% irl ok with taking these children away, allowing them to be vaccinated, and either putting their negligent parents under the burden of proving they will be good parents from now on or helping the children find loving forever homes.
https://twitter.com/sallyKP/status/1209506098690056197
What am I looking at here, Stave?
-
some anti-vax lady demanding that the below article be pulled from the internet and making the age old comparison of jews during holocaust to anti-vax people. she's since deleted her account apparently.
https://www.parents.com/parenting/better-parenting/advice/should-you-ban-unvaccinated-kids-from-your-home/